J.R. CHOPRA, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the order passed by ADSL. Munsif Magistrate No.l, Jodhpur dated 17.7.89 whereby the application filed u/s 151 C.P.C. and an application pending u/order 39 R.I C.P.C. and another application filed under 0.8 R.9 C.P.C. for grant of Temporary Injunction have been rejected. (2). The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision briefly stated are that Shri Mahaveer Dass filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against M/s Geneshmal, Jeev Raj. It was alleged in that suit that the plaintiff has not paid the rent and at the same time he has sublet the premises to somebody else and, therefore, suit for ejectment of the tenant from the suit premises should be decreed. The ejectment was also claimed on the basis of the bonafide necessitly During the pendency of the suit, it is alleged that the tenant started making certain constructions, additions and alterations in the said premises and, therefore, the plaintiff brought an application for grant of Temporary Injunction. Only after giving a notice, to the defendant and after obtaining his reply, an interim order of status quo was passed. The defendant took the plea that Commissioner, Devasthan is a necessary party in the suit as also in this application. It was further averred that no temporary Injunction can be sought in a suit where no relief of permanent Injunction is claimed in the main suit. Firstly, the plaintiff wanted to file a rejoinder by filing an application under 0.8 R.9.C.C. and secondly it has moved an application for amendment of the suit to incorporate the relief that the defendant is making additions and alterations and is raising additional constructions in the suit premises and, therefore, he should be permanently restrained from doing so. That application was however filed in the main suit in the application filed u/s 151 C.P.C. pending for grant of temporary Injunction. The plaintiff applicant claimed that, application should be decided before this T.I. application is disposed-of by the Court. These two applications came to be decided by the impugned order and hence this revision-petition. (3). I have heard Mr. O.P. Mehta as also Mr. J. Gehlot appearing for both the parties. (4). The plaintiff applicant claimed that, application should be decided before this T.I. application is disposed-of by the Court. These two applications came to be decided by the impugned order and hence this revision-petition. (3). I have heard Mr. O.P. Mehta as also Mr. J. Gehlot appearing for both the parties. (4). I may mention it at the very outset that whether Commissioner Devasthan is a necessary part or not, is a plea which can legitimately be taken in a written statement. Such matters cannot be decided in an application for grant of T.I. So far as this plea is concerned that a temporary injunction cannot be granted unless a relief of permanent Injunction is sought in the suit is a misconceived and unsustainable. In support of this plea, Mr. Gehlot drew my attention to an authority of a learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court in V.D. Tripathi and Others Vs. Vijay Shanker Dwivedi and Ors. (1) wherein it has been observed that the Temporary Injunction under O. 39 R.2 of the Civil procedure code can be granted on the term of the prayer for permanent injunction in the suit and not on different grounds, It is true that where a prayer of permanent injunction is made in the suit, a temporary injunction can be granted only in terms of that prayer and not beyond that and, therefore, so far as this principle is concerned, there is no quarrel about it but at the same, time, I may mention here that this is not the correct position of law that unless the relief of permanent Injunction is claimed in a suit itself, no relief of Temporary Injunction should be granted. O.39 R.1 C.P.C. doesnt envisage such a position. O. 39 R.1 C.P.C. reads as under :- 1. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted:- Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise- (a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or (b) that the defendant threation, or intends to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors. (c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit: the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property or dispossession of the plaintiff for otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders." (5) It is clear from the language of this rule that in any suit, if it is proved by an affidavit or otherwise that conditions a, b and c of r.l exist either jointly or severally, one can approach the Court for grant of T.I. These matters are of emergent nature and they are provided in the rules for meeting these emergent situations. If in a suit brought for eviction on account of non payment of arrears and personal necessity, a plea is taken that the condition of the shop which was existing at the time of the filing of the suit, is sought to be changed or materially altered by the other party then definitely it will taken some time to amend the suit and to seek a relief in that suit that the defendant be restrained from doing so but if no temporary injunction can be granted during the intervening period then it will certainly result in definite injustice. Therefore, it is not the intention of the law that unless a relief of permanent injunction is claimed in the suit, no T.I. can be granted. The intention of the rule is that if in any suit, these three conditions or any one of them as mentioned in clause (a) (b) and (c) of order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. are existing then the Court is competent to grant a temporary injunction even though no relief of permanent injunction has been added in the suit and, therefore, to this extent, I cannot agreed with the submission of Mr. Gehlot that unless a relief of permanent injunction is added in the suit, no T.I. can be granted because in a suit Where property in dispute is in danger of being wasted,damaged or being alienated by any party or being wrongfully sold or if the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of the property with a view to defrauding his creditors and where the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute, these conditions exist or came into existence the filing of the after suit, an application for grant of T.I. can be made and such an injunction can of course be considered and decided by the court. (6). In the context of the observations made hereinabove, the learned lower Court was perfectly justified in dismissing the application under 0.8 R.9 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff. Such place should be allowed to be taken in the pleadings. and they should be decided in a suit not through an application filed for grant of T.I. So far as this application u/s 151 C.P.C is concerned this too, has ben rightly rejected. However the reasons given for rejection of the application are not tenable. The Court is free to decide the application for grant of T.I. even though a relief for permanent Injunction has not been added in the main suit and, therefore, to claim that unless the application under 0,6 r.17 C.P.C whereby the plaintiff seeks to add the relief of permanent injunction in the main suit, is decided the Court has no power to decide the application for grant of T.I. However, as observed earlier the application for grant of T.I. has to be decided on the basis of the provisions of O. 39 r.1 C.P.C and if those conditions exist them the application for grant of T.I. can be dealt with and decided by the Court on the basis of allegations made in the application for grant of Temporary injunction and, therefore, the Court need not wait for the decision of that application and consequent amendment of the suit and hence to that extent, the decision has to be sustained but it cannot be sustained on the reasons mentioned in the judgment of the learned lower Court but because of the reasons mentioned by me above. Therefore, the learned lower Court will be free to. Therefore, the learned lower Court will be free to. decide an application for T.I. on the basis of the contents of the application and the affidavit filed in support of it. I am unable to agree with the Allahabad view that unless a relief for permanent Injunction is added, no T.I. can be granted. I am afraid,this is not the intention of O. 39 r.1 C.P.C and to that extent, I am unable to agree with the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court. (7). With the aforesaid observations, the revision petition stands disposed of accordingly on merits.