ORDER

We have gone through the review petition and the connected papers. There is an obvious mistake because the High Court has not interfered in its re visional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with the order of the City Civil Court., J refusing to grant temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 of the Code, but under its undoubted appellate jurisdiction under Order XLIII, Rule l(r). Even so, there is no justification to grant the application for review. In setting aside the order of the High Court, this Court observed : The City Civil Court on a careful consideration of the evidence came to a definite conclusion that the plaintiff-respondent 1 was not in possession of any of the suit premises on the date of the .J institution of the suit. Even the learned Single Judge has not come to a different conclusion as he observed that the plaintiff is not in khas possession. There was no occasion for the High Court to have granted temporary injunction.

When on the finding reached by both the City Civil Court as well as the learned Single Judge the plaintiff was not in possession, the grant of temporary injunction by the learned Single Judge was wholly unwarranted in terms of Order XXXIX, Rule 1 of the Code. We do not find any merit in the review application which is accordingly dismissed.

For Citation : 1987 (Supp) SCC 166.