Judgement The Government of Assam by its notifications dated 22-9-1972 and 13-81973 nominated six members as the Government nominees to the Governing Body of the Ramkrishna College (hereinafter referred to as the College). It included defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who are respectively the President and the Secretary of the Governing body of the college. The University also by its letters dated 5-9-1972 and 9-12-1972 nominated defendants Nos. 9 and 10 under clause (vi) of Rule 3 of Assam Aided Colleges Management Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The defendant No. 2 convened the first meeting of the Governing Body to be held on 28-8-1973 by his notice dated 21-8-1973. The plaintiff who claims himself to be the Principal and Secretary of the College filed Title Suit No. 66 of 1973 in the Court of the Assistant District Judge No. 1, Silchar, for a declaration that the constitution of the Governing Body of the college was illegal, that he was the rightful Principal of the college and entitled to operate its funds, and also for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from the management of the college affairs including the operation of the college funds. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) for a temporary injunction. The learned Assistant District Judge initially granted an ad interim injunction; but after full hearing he vacated it. On appeal by the plaintiff, the District Judge granted the temporary injunction as prayed for. 2. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have now filed this application under S.115 of the Code challenging the aforesaid order of the District Judge granting the injunction. 3. Shri N.M. Lahiri, learned Advocate General of Meghalaya appearing for the plaintiff, submits that the application under Section 115 of the Code is incompetent. He submits that when the District Judge had the jurisdiction to decide the question involved, he had the jurisdiction to decide it either rightly or wrongly, and his order cannot be challenged under Section 115 of the Code. He submits that when the District Judge had the jurisdiction to decide the question involved, he had the jurisdiction to decide it either rightly or wrongly, and his order cannot be challenged under Section 115 of the Code. In support of his contention, he relies on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1964 SC 1341 in which their Lordships observed- "The power of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not thereby excluded, but the exercise of that power is by the terms of the statute investing it severely restricted. The High Court may exercise its powers in revision only if it appears that in a case decided by a Subordinate Court in which no appeal lies thereto the Subordinate Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. If the trial Court had jurisdiction to decide the case and even if it decided the question wrongly, it did not exercise its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity". In the case of Pandurang Dhondi Chougule v. Maruti Hari Jadhav reported in AIR 1966 SC 153 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held: "The High Court cannot while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 115, correct errors of fact, however gross they may be, or even errors of law; it can only do so when the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. It is only in cases where the Subordinate Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court can be properly invoked. Points of law may arise which are related to questions of jurisdiction. A plea of limitation or a plea or res judicata is a plea of law which concerns the jurisdiction of the Court which tries the proceedings. A finding on these pleas in favour of the party which raises them would oust the jurisdiction of the Court. Points of law may arise which are related to questions of jurisdiction. A plea of limitation or a plea or res judicata is a plea of law which concerns the jurisdiction of the Court which tries the proceedings. A finding on these pleas in favour of the party which raises them would oust the jurisdiction of the Court. An erroneous decision on there pleas, therefore, can be said to be concerned with questions of jurisdiction falling within the purview of Section 115 of the Code." 4. The law therefore is that when a question of law having relation to jurisdiction, is erroneously decided by a Subordinate Court, and by such erroneous decision, it assumes jurisdiction which it did not have, or refuses to exercise jurisdiction which it had, then it will be a case relating to the question of jurisdiction of the Court and the decision can be interfered with by the High Court in its revisional powers under Sec. 115 of the Code, if it is erroneous. Whether principles of law governing issue of temporary injunction were correctly appreciated and applied to the fads of a particular case is a question of law that relates to jurisdiction. If the Subordinate Courts appreciation or application of such principles of law is erroneous it can be interfered under Section 115 of the Code. It therefore cannot be said that in the instant case the petition under Section 115 is competent. This submission of the learned Advocate General has no substance. 5. The well known principles of law governing issue of a temporary injunction under Order 39 of the Code are whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case in the plaint and whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the grant of the injunction. Shri A.M. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that in the instant case, the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to grant the injunction as he did. His submission is the plaintiff has not made out any prima facie case to go for trial and that the balance of convenience was heavily against the grant of the temporary injunction. Mr. His submission is the plaintiff has not made out any prima facie case to go for trial and that the balance of convenience was heavily against the grant of the temporary injunction. Mr. Mazumdar bases his first submission on two grounds; (1) that in this suit, the plaintiff virtually challenges the notifications dated 22-9-1972 and 13-8-1973 by which the Governing Body was constituted by the Government of Assam, but the Government has not been made a party; and so no decree declaring the constitution of the Governing Body invalid can be passed in the absence of the Govt. of Assam as a party, and the suit is bad for non joinder of a necessary party. (2) His second ground is that the plaintiff filed the suit on 6-11-1973. The Govt. by its notification No. ECL. 209/72/102 dated 31-5-1974 amended R.3 of the Assam Aided Colleges Management Rules of 1965, and in pursuance of the new rule, the Govt. have constituted a new Governing Body which is now functioning as the Governing Body of the College. He submits that the cause of action of the suit has ceased to exist and the suit will be infructuous. He submits that although the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the President and the Secretary of the present Governing Body also they are accidentally so; the Govt. could very well have appointed two other persons as President and Secretary. His submission is that no Court will grant a temporary injunction in a suit which has ceased to have its cause of action. 6. Although the questions raised by Shri Mazumdar are substantial, they form the merit of the suit. The learned District Judge has held that the plaintiff has a prima facie case to go for trial. I therefore refrain from expressing any opinion on the first point raised by Sri Mazumdar and propose to proceed on the assumption that the plaintiff has a prima facie case as found by the learned District Judge. 7. The only other submission of Shri Mazumdar is that the principles of law involved in granting a temporary injunction has been erroneously applied to the facts of the present case. His submission is that the balance of convenience is against the grant of a temporary injunction. 8. 7. The only other submission of Shri Mazumdar is that the principles of law involved in granting a temporary injunction has been erroneously applied to the facts of the present case. His submission is that the balance of convenience is against the grant of a temporary injunction. 8. The admitted position is that the plaintiff was suspended by the Governing Body immediately after the filing of the suit and he was ousted from office and since then the defendant No. 2 has been functioning as the Secretary of the college. It is admitted that the plaintiff filed a suit against the order of suspension and got an ex parte decree. It is also admitted that an appeal from the ex parte decree has been filed by the petitioner together with an application for condonation of the delay and they are pending for orders. Be that as it may, the admitted position is that the aforesaid ex parte decree has not been executed; in other words, the plaintiff has not been reinstated in his office and that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have been functioning in their respective capacities. 9. At this stage it is necessary to refer to the relevant rules. Rule 3 of the Rules provides for the constitution of the Governing Body. Rule 6 provides that the college shall satisfy the Gauhati University that it is under the management of a Governing Body in which teaching staff is adequately represented. These two rules relate to the constitution of the Governing Body and we are not concerned with them in this petition. Under Rule 12 the duties assigned to the Governing Body have been enumerated. They are (i) the financial management of the college, including collection of subscriptions, realisation of funds and exemption from payment of fees in accordance with rules; (ii) maintenance of the college building, furniture and equipments; (iii) granting of leave to teachers according to rules, filling up of vacancies and reporting the same to the Director of Public Instruction, Assam, and the Gauhati University; (iv) Appointment of persons in connection with the affairs of the college; (v) making arrangement for half yearly and annual audit of the college fund and verification of stock and furniture. These duties shall ordinarily be entrusted to one or two members of the Governing Body, other than the office bearers and teacher members. These duties shall ordinarily be entrusted to one or two members of the Governing Body, other than the office bearers and teacher members. If there be no such men in the Governing Body to undertake the duty of audit, the Governing Body is to employ an outsider for the purpose of auditing the funds. Rule 14 enumerates the other duties and functions of the Governing Body; they are; (i) to determine the general scheme of the studies of the college subject to the approval by the Gauhati University and of the State Govt. through the Director of Public Instruction with regard to the inclusion of additional steps and grant of new posts, (ii) to construct and visualise projects for improvement of the college, (iii) to deal with the questions of discipline and grant of fee exemption under rules prescribed by the Govt. and (iv) to deal with any question and to exercise any function that may be referred to it by the State Govt. or the Gauhati University. Rules 12 and 14 clearly show that a college functions through its Governing Body, and cannot do so normally without it. When a Governing Body is suspended, the Government can reconstitute it under Rule 8; but until such a Governing Body is reconstituted, the Director of Public Instruction has been empowered to take over the control of management of the college and ask the Principal to carry on the day-to-day administration under the Director of Public Instructions orders for a period not exceeding three months. Rule 8 is not in operation in the present case. 10. In the instant case, the petitioners case is that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were withdrawing money from the college funds deposited in Banks and misappropriating it. These allegations have been denied by the petitioners in their counter-affidavit. They have admitted that they withdrew some money, but they spent it in the payment of the salaries of the teachers, stipends and allowances of the students and for other purposes of the college. The suit was filed in November, 1973, and ever since then the Governing Body has been administering the college smoothly and there has been no objection of any mis-management of the college from any quarters, either from the students or from the guardians or the local public. The suit was filed in November, 1973, and ever since then the Governing Body has been administering the college smoothly and there has been no objection of any mis-management of the college from any quarters, either from the students or from the guardians or the local public. There is nothing on record to show that after the constitution of the impugned Governing Body, the management of the college is in any way suffering. On the other hand, if an injunction be granted, it can easily be seen that the duties and functions of the Governing Body enumerated in Rules 12 and 14 will come to a stop and the administration of the college will be completely paralysed. 11. The grant of an injunction is discretionary and that discretion is to be exercised under well known principles of law. A court will grant or refuse a temporary injunction according to the facts of a particular case and needs of the situation. An injunction will always be refused if the grant of it results in defeat of justice and creates deadlock, and will be granted in order to prevent the mischiefs mentioned in Rule 1 or commission of a breach of contract or any other injury mentioned in Rule 2 of Order 39 of the Code. 12. In the instant case, if an injunction is granted, serious injury will be caused to the college inasmuch as its administration will be paralysed. 13. Another aspect of the matter is that temporary injunction has been sought not against the impugned Governing Body, but against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 only. The plaintiff could not show that under any rules the President or the Secretary of the Governing Body of a college, or both of them jointly, alone shall operate the duties and functions of the college. If temporary injunction be granted, it will be futile, if the Governing body by a resolution authorise another of its members to operate the funds and carry on its other duties and functions. 14. In the result, it must be held that the learned District Judge committed an error in granting the injunction in the case. The impugned order is quashed. The petition is allowed. The Rule is made absolute. But in the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.