DAOOD Vs. JAI KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur, dated 5.8.65, whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioners against the order of the S. D. M. Ajmer, dated 30.6.65 relating to the grant of temporary injunction in respect of the suit lands.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the non -petitioners filed a suit for perpetual injunction in the court of the S.D.O., Ajmer, on 9.6.65. During the course of the proceedings an application was made under sec. 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act seeking a temporary injunction against the defendants -petitioners. The trial court granted a temporary injunction and after hearing both the parties made it absolute on 30.6.65. Having felt aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority who also refused to interfere with the order of the trial court on the ground that the plaintiffs -non -petitioners (respondents in the court of the Revenue Appellate Authority) bad produced the Khatauni relating to the suit lands for the St. years 2017 to 2021 as well as the girdawari for the corresponding period and the mutation sheet supported by an affidavit which showed that the plaintiffs -non -petitioners had continuously been in the physical possession of the land since St. year 2017. The present revision petition has been filed against this order.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the courts below have not followed the rule laid down in Musa vs. Badri Prasad and others (1953 ILR Raj. 257), according to which it is a well established principle in the matter of temporary injunction that a person seeking temporary injunction should be able to satisfy (i) that he has a prima facie case, (ii) that the courts interference is necessary to protect him from that species of injury which the court calls irreparable before his legal right is established by the trial court and (iii) that the comparative mischief or inconvenience which is likely to issue from withholding the injunction will be greater than that which is likely to arise from granting it. It is his contention that as many as 15 affidavits were produced by the petitioner which have not been taken into consideration.