Appellant, Major (R) Muhammad Javed Akhtar, through this appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1, CPC has called in question the order dated 27.2.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, 1st Class, whereby his application for grant of interim injunction was dismissed.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant instituted a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 26.7.2000 against the respondents. The respondents contested the suit by filing a written statement. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 16.2.2013 dismissed the suit for non-prosecution. On 18.2.2013 the appellant filed an application before the learned trial Court for restoration of the suit. The appellant also filed an application for grant of Interim injunction till the restoration of suit. The learned trial. Court vide order dated 27.2.2013 dismissed the application for grant of interim injunction. Hence, this appeal.
3. Learned counsel contends that the application of the appellant for restoration of suit is pending before the trial Court and there is every likelihood of its success and in these circumstances refusal of injunction would adversely affect the rights of the appellant.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the record appended with this appeal.
5. Consequent upon dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution by the learned trial Court vide order dated 16.2.2013, the appellant filed two applications, i.e, one, for restoration of the suit; and, second for grant of interim injunction till the restoration of the suit. The learned trial Court dismissed the. application for grant of interim injunction on the ground that suit was not pending. The order passed by the learned trial Court is unexceptionable for the reason that interim injunction can only be granted in a pending case and a Court cannot grant an injunction after the suit has been dismissed in default. 'This view finds support from the judgment rendered in the case of Ram Sarup and others v. King Emperor (AIR 1924 Oudh 345) and relevant extract thereof reads as under: One aspect of the matter which does not appear to have been emphasized or considered is the fact that the Subordinate Judge's order was passed after the suit had once been dismissed and before it had been restored to the file. There was, therefore, no suit pending at the time before the Court and it had no jurisdiction to pass any orders. I am of opinion that the injunction granted by the Subordinate Judge was void ab initio and having been made without jurisdiction it can, therefore, be no bar to the release of the property."
This appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed in limine.