Vijay Singh vs Dinesh chandra

Sobhag Mal Jain, J.—Dineshchandra, respondent here in, claiming himself to be a tenant of the defendant Vijay Singh, appellant here in, filed a suit in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, (South), Udaipur, for permanent injuction to restrain the defendant, from interferring with the possesion of the plaint ff in the shop situate in 16, Bhamashah Marg. The defendants have described it as a garage. On August 3, 1988, the plaintiff also filed m application for temporary injunction. By the order dated August 4, 1988, the Munsif appointed a Commissioner to inspect the site and also directed status quo to be maintained. The defendant filed a reply to the application for interim injunction. After hearing both the parties and taking into account the affidavits and the report of the Commissioner, the Munsif, by the other dated Dec. 8, 1988, granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff restroning the defendant from interferring with the possession of the plaintiff in the suit shop. Against this, the defendant took the matter in appeal before the District Judge, Ddaipur, who by the order dated April 21, 1989, dismissed the same. Aggrieved, the defendant has filed the present revision in this Court.

After hearing Shri M.C. Bhandari, counsel-for the petitioner and Shri N.N. Mathur, counsel for the respondent, I do not find sufficient grounds to interfere in revision with the order passed by the learned Courts below. The learned Disrict Judge has, in terms, recorded the findings:

esjh jk; es ;g ekus tkus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugh gS fd oknh jsLiksMsUV us fookfnr nqdku ij flrEcj 1988es cyiwoZd utk;t dCtk fd;k gks cfYd bl LVst ij izFke n`"Vr;k rkSj ij ;g Li"V :i ls tkfgj gksrk gS fd oknh jsLiksMsUV fookfnr nqdku ij izfroknh vihykaV dk fdjk;snkj gksdj ml ij dkfct gS vkSj bl dkj.k bl rF; dk vafre :i ls fujkdj.k djus gsrq v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k vUos"k.k ds mijkUr fu.kZ; djus ds fy, ,d xaHkhj elyk ekStwn gS fd ftlds fu.kZ; djus rd oknh jsLiskMsUV ds i{k es izFke n`"V;k ekeys ds vk/kkj ij fookfnr nqdku dk dCtk LFkkbZ cuk;s j[kus gsrq Bksl vk/kkj miyC/k gS D;ksfd oknh jsLiskMsaV dh vksj ls Loa; ds vykok izfroknh vihykaV ds gh nks vU; fdjk;snkj o lkeus ds nqdkunkj ds izFke&i= rFkk O;kikj e.M+y] VsfyQksu foHkkx] o cSd [kkrs dh udy vkfn ,sls nLrkost izLrqr fd;s x;s ftugs bl LVst ij lEiw.kZ :i ls udkjk tk ldrk gS Au gh mUgs >wBk ekuk tk ldrk gS AD;ksfd bl lcds laxBu es izfroknh vihykaV dh vksj ls fdlh rjg dk Loa; ds vykok dksbZ ''kiFki= oknh nLrkosth lcwr izLrqr ugh fd;k x;k gS A esjh jk; es oknh jsLiskMsUV dks vkSj ls bl LVst ij izLrqr fd;s x;s QksVks o fjiksZV dfe''uj dks Hkh lEiw.kZ :i ls utjvankt fd;k tkuk fdlh Hkh izdkj ls lqjf{kr rFkk U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugh gksrk fd ftuds vk/kkj ij Hkh fookfnr nqdku dk oknh jsLiskMsUV dk dCtk o"kZ 1984 ls gksuk izdV gksrk gSSA vkSj bl izdkj izfroknh vihykaV dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;k x;k dksbZ lk{; Hkh rdZ o n`"Vkar ekStwnk izdj.k es ifjfLFkr;ks dks ns[krs gq, lgk;d ugh gSA vkSj esjh jk; es Hkh oknh jsLiksMsUV ds i{k es izFke n`"V;k ekeyk bl LVst ij Li"V :i ls ekStwnk gS vkSj bl lEcU/k es izfroknh vihykaV dh fjiksZV ij iqfyl es uxj n.M uk;d mn;iqj }kjk tks dk;Zokgh na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 107 o 145 ds izko/kku ds vuqlkj gqbZ gSS muls Hkh oknh jsLiskMsaV ds i{k es dksbZ foijhr izHkko ugh iM+uk ugh ekuk tk ldrk gS A

Counsel for the petitioner, was unable to satisfy me that the orders of the learned Courts below suffer from any error of jurisdiction. I do not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the learned Munsif in the exercise of jurisdiction.

In there suit, there is no force in the present revision and the same is here by dismissed.