JAMADAR SULEMAN BACHUMIYA Vs. MAHAVIR MATHADIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision application. The applicant filed Suit No. 50/58 before the Mamlatdar of Baroda under section 5 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act for a permanent injunction restraining the opponents from causing obstructions to the possession of the suit lands. Pending the suit an interim injunction was granted on 8-12-58 and an application for vacating the interim injunction was also dismissed. The learned Mamlatdar also ordered that the contention of the opponents that they were tenants of the suit lands should be decided by the tenancy Court and that the suit under the Mamlatdars Courts Act should be kept pending till the decision by the tenancy Court. The opponents went in revision to the Prant Officer Baroda under section 23 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act. The learned Prant Officer came to the conclusion that the possession was with the original defendants to the suit. He therefore set aside the order of the Mamlatdar granting an interim injunction. Although in the order he has stated that the injunction both interim and permanent are vacated in fact the learned Mamlatdar had ordered only an interim injunction to issue.

(2.) In revision it is contended that the learned Prant Officer was wrong in appreciating the evidence afresh in revision before him under section 23 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act and that the learned Prant Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain a revision under section 23 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act when only an interim injunction had been passed and when no final order had been passed.

(3.) In support of the first contention reliance is placed on Kashiram v. Rajaram 13 Bom. L. R. 879. With respect I agree with the observations in this case that in revision under the Mamlatdars Courts Act the revising authority has no power to weigh the evidence which was before the Mamlatdar and come to a different conclusion of fact with reference to the plaintiffs possession.