GIROJI RAO ALIAS GIRMOJI RAO Vs. SHIVASHANKARA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner.

(2.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 9-8-1994 passed by the additional Civil Judge, Kolar, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 11 of 1994 from the judgment and order dated 4-2-1994 on I. A. I under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC in O. S. No. 60 of 1993, setting aside the Trial Court's order granting the temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-revision petitioner and after setting aside the Trial Court's judgment, the lower appellate Court rejected the application for temporary injunction. The Trial Court held the prime facie case to be in favour of the plaintiff as well as the balance of convenience to be in favour of the plaintiff-revision petitioner. But the lower Appellate Court on considering the matter held that there was no prima facie case for the plaintiff and he further found balance of convenience in favour of the defendant-appellant. The reason it has given is that the defendant 1 i. e. , the respondent in the present revision claims to be a mortgagee in possession on the basis of mortgage-deed executed by Narayana Rao, son of Ranoji Rao. The lower Appellate Court opined that a person in possession as a mortgagee will be deprived of his possession if the in- junction is granted, but if injunction is refused then whosoever is in possession will continue to be in possession of the property. Therefore, it opined that no irreparable loss is going to be caused to the plaintiff if the relief is withheld and allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the Trial court. Feeling aggrieved from the findings of the lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff has come up in revision.

(3.) I have Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.