BHAROSLLAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

(2.) The plaintiff-applicant had filed a suit on 27/6/1990 claiming a decree declaring him to be the owner in possession of the property in dispute. He had also prayed for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the property in the suit.

(3.) During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. was filed by the plaintiff praying for an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the ownership and possession over the property in dispute.