A party to a suit or proceedings, who was dispossessed in violation of the order of interim injunction granted in his favour, the Court under Section 151 C. P. C. can restore the possession in case Section 144 C. P. C. is not applicable.

S. S. M. QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THESE two revisions arise out of the same facts and the same suit. They are heard together and can be conveniently disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in these two revisions is said to be the owner of the premises (hereinafter referred to as "the landlord") bearing Municipal No. 16-5-183 situated at Dabeerpura, Hyderabad, (for short the suit premises ). The first respondent is the tenant, he will be referred to as such. The second respondent is the proforma party. The tena nt filed O. S. No. 2064 of 1992 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the land-lord for a perpetual injunction restraining the land-lord from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit premises. In the suit he filed I. A. No. 637 of 1992 under Order 39 Rule 1 C. P. C. praying the Court to grant interim injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with his peaceful possession. It appears that ex parte interim injunction was granted by the trial Court in May, 1992, which was made absolute after hearing both the parties on 16-3-1993. Against the said order, the land-lord filed C. M. A. No. 147 of 1993.

( 3 ) ALLEGING that on August 11,1992, the land-lord forcibly dispossessed him from the suit premises in violation of the order of interim injunction granted by the trial Court on 19-5-1992, the tenant filed I. A. No. 896 of 1992 praying the Court to restore him into possession of the suit premises. That I. A. was resisted by the land-lord alleging that even according to the tenant, he was already dispossessed on 16-5-1992 before the filing of the suit (The suit was filed on 19-5-1992), therefore, the story set up by the tenant is wholly incorrect.

( 4 ) BEFORE the trial Court, the parties led evidence. The tenant examined two witnesses including himself and marked Exs. A-12 to A-48 whereas the land-lord produced two witnesses including himself as R. W. I and another witness. He also marked Exs. B-1 to B-4. On appreciation of the evidence placed on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the tenant was in possession on the date of the sui t and that he was dispossessed from the suit premises by the landlord on August 11,1992. On those findings, he allowed the LA. and directed restoration of possession of the tenant by order dated 16-3-1993. Dissatisfied with the said order, the land-lord filed C. M. A. No. 65 of 1993.

( 5 ) THOSE two appeals were heard by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and were disposed of by a common judgment dated 21st February, 1994. The learned Judge confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the C. M. As. Against the order dismissing the C. M. A. No. 65 of 1993, the land-lord filed C. R. P. No. 910 of 1994; against the judgment dismissing C. M. A. Np. 147 of 1993, the land-lord filed C. R. P. No. 1079 of 1994.

( 6 ) SRI C. P. Sarathy, tine learned Counsel for the petitioner in these C. R. Ps. , vehemently contends that Section 144 C. P. C. hasno application to this case and restoration of possession cannot be ordered and the order under revision is, therefore, without jurisdiction. He further contends that tine complaint by tine tenant s wife on 16-5-1992 itself clearly establishes that the tenant was already dispossessed on 16-5-1992 and as such he was not in possession on the date of the suit. Therefore, the trial Court ought not to have made the interim injunction absolute. He further contends that the case of the plaintiff that he was dispossessed on 11tin August, 1992 has not been established and that tine findings recorded by the Courts below arewholly incorrect; if this Court should re-appraise the evidence, it will come to tine conclusion that the dispossession was even prior to the suit i. e. , 16-5-1992, as such, the question of directing the restoration of possession is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. In any event, submits Sri Sarathy, that if this Cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document