JETHA RAM Vs. TRILOK CHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The trial Court granted injunctions in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 16.12.2004, but the order of injunction was vacated by the appellate Court vide order dated 09.02.2004.

(3.) According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the appellant Court vacated the interim order only on the ground that the defendants-appellants before the first Appellate Court were in actual possession of the property in question . According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner that finding is absolutely wrong in view of the facts that petitioner was granted licence by the Krishi Upja Mandi Samiti respondent No. 6 and also gave possession letter to the petitioner. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner any letter evidencing their legal possession is not with any of the respondent- defendants.