MAHARAJ SINGH Vs. SARJOO BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is at the instance of the defendant seeking interference with the order made by the Courts below granting temporary injunction restraining the applicant defendant from re -constructing the suit house and making the proposed alterations and additions during the pendency of the suit.

(2.) BOTH the parties claim title to the suit house by putting up their respective cases. The plaintiff respondent claims that she purchased the suit house from Mst. Jawariya by a sale deed dated 11 -7 -1951 and is in possession since then. The defendant applicant, however, claims that he is in possession since long and that the plaintiff herself had taken only a small room of the suit house on rent from him and is in occupation of the same.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant contended that the subsequent order made by the trial Court and affirmed by the lower appellate Court was not liable to be sustained because earlier an application for grant of temporary injunction moved by the plaintiff had already been dismissed and the same has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court also. In my opinion, this contention is absolutely misconceived. The earlier application for grant of temporary injunction was in respect of interference with the actual possession of the parties on the suit house. It was found that the defendant was in possession of the entire suit house except one room which was in possession of the plaintiff. Under these circumstance, the application for grant of temporary injunction moved by the plaintiff in respect of the entire suit house was rejected. The present application which has been subsequently filed is based on a subsequent event which happened after the disposal of the earlier application. Now, as the defendant wanted to reconstruct the suit house, the plaintiff was justified in approaching the trial Court seeking temporary injunction to keep the suit property intact in status quo. If the trial Court in exercise of its discretion allowed the application and restrained the defendant from making any new construction, alteration or addition, and the lower appellate Court also affirmed the same, no case is made out for interfering with the order impugned by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The order impugned appears to be quite reasonable and proper. It cannot be said that it suffers from any defect of jurisdiction or can be said to have been made with material irregularity.