SARALA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY REP. THROUGH KAILASH DALEI AND ORS. Vs. KAMESWAR PRIMARY FISH PRODUCTION MARKETING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff -petitioners filed T.S. No. 150/96 for declaration that the villagers of village Arakhia have right of catching fish from the suit schedule -A property and in the alternative, for a direction that in case it is found that they have no such right, the lease for the year 1996 -97 granted by Defendant No. 2 in favour of Defendant No. 1 in respect of the disputed property be declared as invalid and for a further direction that the said property should be settled by way of public auction as per the principles of Lease enunciated by the State of Orissa. Land for permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from interfering with the peaceful possession of Plaintiff -villagers in exercising right of fishery over the disputed property in any manner.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the suit an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure was filed. In the said application, initially an interim order of status quo was passed by the trial court which was confirmed by the trial Count after hearing both sides. Thereafter, Defendant No. 1 filed Misc. Appeal No. 119/96 which has been allowed by the Additional District Judge. Hence the present Civil Revision.

(3.) THE jurisdiction of a Revisional court is very restricted. Unless same jurisdictional error is committed or unless it is shown that jurisdiction has been exercised with material irregularity, the revisional court should not interfere with the order of the lower court even though the order of the lower court may be erroneous. More erroneous appreciation of evidence on record does not constitute exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity. In the present case, the appellate court has adverted to the relevant circumstances appearing in the case and has refused to confirm the order of status quo. Defendant No. 1 is claiming right on the basis of a lease granted by the State. Prima, facie, it cannot be said that operating the lease by Defendant No. 1 would cause any irreparable loss to the Plaintiffs as Plaintiff would not be in a position to recover by way of damages if ultimately they succeed in the suit. Similarly, it cannot be said that balance of convenience is in favour of Plaintiffs, inasmuch as Defendant No. 1 is seeking a right on the basis of lease granted to it by the State. At any' rate, it cannot be said that the appellate court has exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere in this Civil Revision.