PADMAMMA W/O LATE GOVINDAIAH Vs. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MANDYA, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANDYA-571401

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner / plaintiff filed a suit for injunction. An application under Order 39 Rules 1');">1 and 1');">2 was filed by him to restrain the defendants from interfering with the schedule premises. The Trial Court rejected the application and on an appeal being filed, the Appellate Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, this petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is running a canteen in the suit schedule premises. The Defendant / City Municipal Council has allotted the premises to her at the Kalamandir Road, Mandya. However, the same is under construction and the same is not yet ready for occupation. Hence, the petitioner / plaintiff pleads for injunction.

(2.) HEARD . I do not see any error committed by the Trial Court, which calls for interference. There are no merits to show that the petitioner is in lawful possession of the suit schedule premises. Admittedly, there is no permission or license or any such documents on the basis of which, the present shop is set up. Under these circumstances, the Court below has rightly dismissed the application for possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule premises. In a suit for injunction, the Trial Court necessarily has to consider the plea of the plaintiff so far as his lawful possession is concerned. The Trial Court has recorded its findings based on facts and circumstances of the case and I do not see any error committed by the Trial Court. Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly, dismissed.