GUDUMA Vs. SHIKANDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition filed under Section 115 of the CPC by the unsuccessful plaintiff is directed against the order dated 3-3-2003 passed in M. A. No. 9 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jamkhandi, wherein, the learned Civil Judge had allowed the said miscellaneous appeal and thereby vacated the order of temporary. injunction granted by the Trial Court (Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jamkhandi) vide order dated 5-7-2002 passed in LA. No. I in O. S. No. 69 of 1999, questioning the legality and propriety of the order impugned.

(2.) THE Court has heard the arguments of both sides.

(3.) SRI Jayavittal Rao Kolar, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the order impugned is illegal and improper and the learned Civil judge (Senior Division) had not appreciated the facts in issue in the right perspective. He also contended that the plaintiff has been in lawful possession of the suit property and had sought for interim order of injunction in the Trial Court against the respondents from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The trial Court, after careful consideration of the facts in issue, had exercised its discretion in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), without considering the facts in issue, had interfered with the order of the Trial Court and vacated the order of temporary injunction and the same is totally unjustifiable in law. The learned counsel contended that the facts in issue require to be considered in the full fledged trial and till then, status quo between the parties will have to be maintained and, if not, the very purpose of the suit will be defeated. The learned Counsel relied upon the following two decisions in support of his contentions: