Temporary injunctions may be sought by a defendant; revision is barred where an appeal lies under the Code.

Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was treated as broad enough to support a temporary injunction application by a defendant, not only by a plaintiff, where necessary to preserve the subject matter and maintain status quo during the suit. The provision was also read as covering injunctions that may be prohibitory or mandatory in effect, depending on the circumstances. Where such an order is appealable under Order 43, Rule 1(r), revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked if an appeal lies. The impugned order was therefore regarded as appealable, and the civil revision petition as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application by a defendant for a mandatory injunction could fall within Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether a revision petition was maintainable when an appeal lay under the Code.

Analysis: Order 39, Rule 1 was read as wide enough to authorise temporary injunctions not only at the instance of a plaintiff but also on an application by a defendant, because the language of the rule and the connected provisions in Order 39 contemplated orders against either party. The Court treated the rule as covering injunctions, prohibitory or mandatory, where necessary to preserve the subject matter and maintain status quo during the pendency of the suit. Since an order of this nature was appealable under Order 43, Rule 1(r), the revisional jurisdiction could not be invoked where an appeal was available.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection was upheld. The impugned order was held to be appealable, and the civil revision petition was not maintainable.

---