KIRORI Vs. MOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition No. 144/66 arises from a suit filed by the applicants u/s 188 of the Act against the non -applicant. The ad -interim order secured by him in the suit was vacated by the triaL court on 27 -1 -66 On an appeal by the applicant, an ad -interim stay order was secured on 1 2 -66 but the same was eventually vacated on 20 -6 -66. Hence this revision.

(2.) It is contended on behalf of the applicants that the impugned orders which are identical, are not speaking orders. It is urged that the learned R.A.A. could have heard the entire matter and decided the appeals on merit but in vacating the stay orders he has virtually decided the suits in favour of the non applicant without going into the merits of the case. It is stated that all the records (sale deed etc) were before the R.A.A., and that the applicants were in possession of the suit lands as a khatedar Tenants and in disturbing their possession, the learned R.A.A. has committed an illegality which amounts to abuse of the process of law in asmuchas khatedar tenants stand divested of their rights.

(3.) On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the non -applicant that the impugned orders are merely interlocutory orders whereby the court refused to exercise the discretion vesting in it in favour of the applicants. There is no illegality in these orders and, therefore, they cannot be challenged in revision. This argument bears weight. The grant of temporary injunction is a discretionary measure and when the lower courts have exercised jurisdiction in a particular manner it is not within the power of the revisional courts to interfere with the same unless it can be shown that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by them. The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the property until the decision of the title. As it is, by the impugned orders,, the appellate authority merely vacated the stay orders earlier issued by it and adjourned the appeals to be heard on 23 -8 -66. There are apparently interlocutory orders and cannot for that reason be condemned as a non -speaking order. The appeals had yet to be heard by the R.A.A. and I am of the view that no interference is called for by this court in the revisional jurisdiction.