MINERVA SHIKSHA SAMITI Vs. MITHLESH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order of Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur passed on 18.7.84 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 C.P.C. for grant of mandatory injunction. '

(2.) PETITIONER Minerva Shiksha Samiti is running a school having more than 350 students in the disputed premises, which was taken on rent from the mother of the non petitioner in July, 1978 at the rate of Rs. 100/- P.M. The rent was gradually increased to Rs. 180/- P.M. The non-petitioner started hare-ssing the petitioner and, therefore, it had become necessary for the petitioner to file the present suit on 9.7.82, for permanent injunction restraining the non-petitioner from interfering with the peaceful possession of the disputed property. Alongwith the plaint the plaintiff had also filed an application under order 39, Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. An Ad-interim order was passed by the trial Court on 9.7.1982 and since the non-petitioner refused to accept the service, ex-parte proceedings were ordered on 31.7.1982 and the ad-interim order was confirmed by order dt. 5.8.1982 restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the disputed premises and further not be interfere with the plaintiff's right to use and enjoy the whole of the disputed property. The suit was dismissed in default on 6.10.1982. The petitioner moved an application for restoration and the suit was restored on 11.11.82 and there after the suit was decreed ex-parte on 9.12.1982. Thereafter an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was filed by the non-petitioner for setting aside the exparte decree and the trial Court by its order 14.11.83 set aside the ex-parte decree 6c restored the suit to its original number. Inspite of the order of the trial Court dated 5.8.1982, the non-petitioner locked the disputed premises from inside on 29.6.1984 and therefore, the petitioner moved an application under sec. 151 C.P.C. on 2.7.1984 supported by an affidavit of Shri Mohan Singh. The trial Court appointed a commissioner and issued notices of the said application to the non-petitioner. The non-petitioner filed a reply to the said application on 6.7.1984. The Commissioner inspected the site on 5.7.1984 and submitted its report. Another Commissioner was appointed, who inspected the site on 16.7.1984 and also submitted his report. The trial Court after hearing the parties, rejected the application dated 2.7.1984 u/s 151 C.P.C. and it is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the non-petitioner vehemently submitted that even if the revision petition is maintainable this court should not interfere in the revisio-nal jurisdiction even if the order is wrong or not in accordance with law unless the trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity or the matter relates to the jurisdictional fact, and in this connection he has placed reliance on Hindustan Eronatic vs. Ajit Prasad (23), M.L. Sethi Vs. R.L. Kapoor(24) & Sher Singh v. it. Director Consolidation (25). LEARNED counsel for the non-petitioner then submitted that this court should not interfere to correct the errors of law or Act, however, erroneous that may be unless they have relation to the jurisdictional fact and since the trial court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the application u/s 151 C.P.C. this court should not interfere in revision petition.