AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 189 wordsM.P. Chandrakantharaj Urs, J.-This is a plaintiff''s revision against the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the lower appellate Court refusing to grant the temporary injunction. The sheet-anchor of the plaintiff''s case was that in the light of the earlier suit filed by the defendant which came to be dismissed, on the principle of res judicata, would lead to the conclusion that the petitioner was in possession of the suit property as the suit by the defendant was in respect of the same suit property.
The Courts below have negatived that contention on the ground that the Rule of res judicata at the stage of granting the temporary injunction should not be examined but at a later stage of the suit.
If there is no direct prima facie evidence to prove the possession and what was offered was suspected inasmuch as it was over written (the Record of Rights extract) refusal to grant temporary injunction on such evidence cannot be held to be improper exercise of jurisdiction or failure to exercise the jurisdiction.
The revision pelition is therefore misconceived and is rejected.
Revision Petition Rejected.