SN AGIA v tgagee Fe ‘Oo put age’ the defendant pot tgaged propert; ia essio™ of the mortgaged property and to pay the Costs of this appli- ation: No. 49—Application for arrest before judgment (6b) }, The facts disclosed in the annexed affidavit afford a Teasonable csbility that the plaintiff will, or may be delayed in the execution of any cree that may be passed against the defendant in this case, 2, The plaintiff prays that a warrant be issued for the arrest of the defendant, and on the defendant being brought to court, such order about deposit of money or security or imprisonment of the defendant in the civil prison may be passed as may appear to the court to be just and sufficient to safeguard the plaintiff’s interests in the suit and under the decree that may be passed, Affidavit 1, Imake oath and say that the defendant was. served with summons in the above case on July 10, 1959, .W. R. (Ma, Huzabar y, Abdul F. Khan, 1936 AL. J. 12281936. We 1033), Limitation is governed by Art. 181 an ime runs from the date of final confirmation of sale of mortgaged property Gati, 168 1. C. 673, 1937 (All) 285). granted except on a very eT een hould fall under Sap eg mae Tel The BH 1 a - 38,R.1,C ° c ‘An intention to delay ithe plain ior to au ty Process or to obstruct or delay the excel fe ty ta ‘te vilin a case under Clause (a) an ble prea Plaintite will cimay be obstructed in the execution jot ation ern cts and, unless this is S| » (te) pecessary element of a case under See (b). pility must be clearly shown by PPlication for arrest can be granted.MISCELLAN® © * 912 th and say that, on the night of the same day huly ‘ake onl fects, ie As | * a tant sent all his household effects, jewellery ang cay, with ‘ jefendant § : 1959, the ¢ family, to Re Tmake oath and say that fam informed by L, Head clerk of Mes mal s y 3 ndant is employed, and I verily believe it, lo o flice the defen 5 & Co. in whose 0} , " / G that the defendant has given @ notice to his said employers oe f the month of July, 1959. be true, their service at the end o} 4, I make oath and say that! am informed by Bodhu son of Jhamo, Macchi, employed as the defendant's cook, that the defendant is intendiog to leave the country and to go to R at the end of this month, No. 50—Application for attachment before judgment (cc) 1. For reasons disclosed in the annexed affidavit, the plaintiff prays that the defendant be ordered to furnish such security as the court thinks Proper and, on his failure to do so, the following Property be attached, 2. As there is a danger that the said property may be soon disposed of by the defendant, the plaintiff further prays that, pending final orders of the court, the said property may be conditionally attached. Value J * * * * * v Affidavit 1. I make oath and sa) defendant on June 10, 1925, y that the summons in this case was served on the Itis not neces ssa 1 a ” Ported by an affidasit ait ,2 @PPlication for arrest should be 3? which the applicant eat {UE are other materials on the record fO™ Such materials om CaM Make out a case, But as generally there are hy Practice, that an athdans, TCOTd, the practice is, and it isa very 8° ino TH Is also. grange omPAMIeS Such an application, J aa intention to delay go, St@Bted on}, nds and Passed must be establapety tet the exeeutin’ Of eee that may fore an obtain attachment order can beAPPLICATIONS UNDER © CPG, e oath and say that the ymake y thal the defendant has a ns spouted below:— © other property except wl Property * * * . * . . pmake oath and say that the defendant : lant has, - gnade negotiations with Roof K vill ater the recep of ARC, for the sale of the said 4 Lmake oath and say that Tam informed by $ patwari of village M illage spd verily believe it Lo be true, that R has paid Rs. 100 as earnest money y to te defendant and the latter has agreed to execule a sale-deed in favour atthe said R in the course of a week, Tmake oath and say that Iam informed by the said $ and I verily believe it to be true, that the defendant had told the said S to have the sale- nd that on being asked the ca hat the plaintiff had instituted that the whole property would use of deed executed without unnecessary delay a the haste, the said defendant told the said Rt a suit against him and that he apprehended te swallowed up by the decree of the plaintiff. No. S1—Application for a temporary injunction @a) the annexed _alfidavit, restrained by # the plaintiff temporary disclosed in No, 1 be For reasons Pays that the defendant The bare fact that th perty or is about to have been done to Pay Necessary expenses. perty is shown to b2 attachment can be allidavit made in U and (dd) Order 39% TUES Granted: ours Porary injunction can Snaiter of cou an injunction will, as at must be understood tbat tionary, it cannot be BI serious, immediate au gtanted, In no C456 Sonu of contract, unless He © toCLEA mis gid setling HE properly specilied below in execution ot fram © . injunction F va by the Civil Judge, Fitst Class of A, Sy, - gz pase No. HO of List of property . ‘ " . 7 . . . Affidavit 1. 1 make oath and say that lam the owner of the Property vy is n of decree No. 140 of 1922 passeq 7 put up to sale in execution Subordinate Judge, First Class, of A and that C judgmenttebir, eht or interest in the said property. or the case is one for a perpetual injunction. But it does not faloy that in all cases in which specific performance or injunction can be gas. ed by the decree, a temporary injunction can always be granted, ty, to justify an injunction not only must the case be one in which anit junction is an appropriate relief, but there must be the further ingrdiat that unless the defendant is restrained forthwith by a temporay i junction, irreparable injury or inconvenience may result to the plait lif. Mere inconvenience cannot be said to be_ irreparable injuy Se relary, Civil Sin, Sub-Committee, Nagpur v. Govindrao, 170 I, C23 1937 (Nag.) 137. Ina suit for declaration of title merely and sé for possession nor for perpetual injunction, a temporary inj restraining defendant from interfering with plaintiff's possessio? vi be granted (Sachindra y. Panchanar, 94 1. C. 871, 30.C. Wr 1926 (Cal,) 604). An argument which is often advanced in Si, an application for injunction is that the injunction will ey ihe te, defendant, ‘That is_no consideration and can be PCF 8? (Ps 5 308) an injunction (Gopalji Jha vy. Gojendra, 162 Lens plication or a ‘he applicant must, therefore, make ou Durch oF affidavit, not only a case within the scope iu but also a strong. cas y roparabk i him. For insta case of some substantial and it Build ‘on Pe UPS land, Tate’ if the defendant commences to but solliere_is no case for an injunction to festtalh aq's My one because, if the plaintiff succeeds, the defen ee the Plaintiti's youshed. But if a defendant commences fro Sy! 80. An injunae ‘Ouse, he may be restrained by an injune nal o> jot Must be rare, i will never, unless in very except iy {rot an his duties, A. leg granted to restrain a public functions yin) unless. there ace! should refuse to apply for a teMPiiog, Magi! Pi ty 10 Wanye ecuestamtial grounds for the anys fieg a0 applicatis Ment of the provision of 7 a . ion which does not appear toh! ent reation: ce ppl CE ib 10ONS UND rR > T-make oath and say that . ; November 14 925 Xe mher 14, 1 . 72S is the date §; " E df x 1 make oath and say thy FY consiy my . sa at the be oath Propert re and some rare pictures, _ e : Sof my fa favour T make oath and say 4 ythat no amount of mor ney cane ompenss ye loss of the said propert fo ‘le me No. s2— Application for Appointment of receiver ina suit for possession (eo) . For reason disclosed in the ai annexed affidavit th. a © plaintiff prays, ceiver of the property specified below. b pi c ula t d belo © appointed, that th efendant be remove ed from possession of the said prop 'Y, and that the Property, and he 7 ame be commitied to the charge of the receiver, to be managed by hi . ° “ im ie directions of the court until the final disposal of the case ad til ae de suc! 7 Sey nuil further avers and that such further and other orders be made as the court think st and proper. hinks Details of property . . . * . . + . Affidavit 1. T make oath and say that one S was the owner of the property in “pute in the above noted case. to apply for an_ injunction re appropriate relief, because dily granted on the ground but this impression must n easier process than whe ils, Practice at some places itis Tanachment before judgment is the mot that nsidered that an injunction is more rea it causes no hardship to the defendant, maMoved, as under the law, injunction ¥8 not a 4 ment before judgment. Part from ©, 40, the court has re tne ing for protection and secu vestige COU can, under this power 0 of pauperisin is decided and cto pass an order irity of the suit property, There ee Ltn injunction before the the suit is registered (Dhandesh- Court has also inherent inherent powet foy sary, Gh “ Ghanshyam, 194 201, 187 LC. 813 fo ab oa) a S injunction to resin oan, gtOP_ base of process 25 na curt ent fn Wa aldeo Sahat, 140 (NIE irm Ba reed j Tom prosecuting a suit institu 4. (the contract (Fi ichharam . (Firm Bi . ¢ pased ont") See 0. 40, R.1, This is ao an order which a cit ope’ Ney “exceptional cases. _ Hf the Gefendant an posse Y claimed by the plaintiff, heMISCPLE 16 th and SAY that the said S, executed a yi » oath 3 3, TE amake he said) property to me and deposited the yy va pecan fA. My 1920, bel | pisttivt Registrar of A. ‘i, the alice OF the and say that the said S. died in November, 19 a et a Emake oat 1 make oath and say that | was in England from Septem 4 studying for the bar. ey to September, 1924, 5, 1 mak e oath and say that on the death of the said s, the def end, secession of the said property on the ground of his being g ay obsained p “ kinsman of S. 6. [make oath and say that since he has obtained Possession defendant is mismanaging the property and reducing the value te corpus of the said property. 7, 1 make oath and say that I have learnt from the copies oft patias and of village papers, and I verily believe that the information contained in them is true, that the defendant, in July, 1922, granted 20 yas’ pattas to the following tenants at half the generally prevalent reos- A,B, H, S and L. 8, I make oath and say that I have been informed by the vif Patwari R. and I verily believe the information to be true, that the dees? has taken large sums of money as nazrana from the following tenan's a0 withdrawn the suits for ejectment filed against them and has allowed ti? to acquire occupancy rights—P. $, A. and G. mat T make oath and say that I have been informed by C:l« Village R Wn , at weet “and I verily believe it to be true, that the defendant hs orth R . yO 8. 6,000 in the said village R. a js" nee ing ate at The de sal lainti€ has a prima facie title as agains We wnt lange! lant is mis B aye Hi Gneer that the value epmamanasing the propery ced bye tc.C) of the property will be reduced 7p (C: 1838 (0 40EA,Bidarramp ve Kshacann, 1938 A: nit “NJ 1153, 178 IC. 725). Specific acts ©