ASLAM SHAWL Vs. GULAM MOHAMMAD SHANGRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of District Judge Srinagar dated 12-8-1986 whereby he has confirmed the order passed by First Additional Munsiff Srinagar on 19-4-1986. The First Additional Munsiff Srinagar by his order seems to have refused to grant an interim injunction against the defendant/respondent. On appeal learned District Judge observed that there was no reason which would empower him to interfere with the order recorded by the trial court. Against the order refusing to grant interim injunction by two courts, the plaintiff/petitioner has come up in revision to this court.

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that plaintiff has brought a suit in the court of First Additional Munsiff Srinagar styling himself to be the tenant of the suit property under the defendant/respondent, and wants a relief of perpetual injunction that he should not be forcibly evicted from the suit shop.

(3.) In the written statement the defendant has denied the claim of the plaintiff. It is stated that plaintiff was never the tenant of the defendant. There was no tenancy granted in respect of the suit shop. The plaintiff in fact is said to have been an employee of the defendant in the suit shop and in some dispute between the defendant and his sister's son the plaintiff has admitted defendant to be the owner of the suit shop and also to be in possession of the same. This position was admitted in a case under section 145 Cr. P.C. which was initiated in respect of the suit property between the defendant and his sister's son. In a civil suit which was pending in the court of 2nd Munsiff Srinagar, a Commissioner has also reported that defendant was in possession of the suit shop. The plaintiff is said to have taken advantage of illness of the defendant's son and had forcibly occupied half of the two shops and after having occupied the said shop forcibly he has brought this suit. He is neither a licence nor a tenant. 4-5. Court would not interfere in a con-curring finding arrived at by two courts about a matter which is interim. The plaintiff is held by the two courts to be not entitled to any relief of temporary injunction. It will be difficult for this court to interfere with such findings which are not shown to be perverse or illegal.