The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'case decided' under Section 115 of the C. P. C. and the conditions for exercising revisional jurisdiction.

( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 2-4-1992 passed by the Court of the Munsiff, Basawana Bhagewadi, on Interlocutory Application No. 1 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2 ) FEW facts to briefly state are :the plaintiffs filed original suit against the defendants seeking the following reliefs :"to declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in exclusive possession, use and enjoyment of the suit property of an area of 14 guntas, covered by the Somanatha Samadhi Katta of an area of 10 guntas and Samadhi of shivappa Muthya to an area of 4 guntas in R. S. No. 128/1 (old R. S. No. 80) inclusive of the Samadhi Kattas of their other ancestors; or, alternatively, to declare that the plaintiffs are the owners in exclusive possession, use and enjoyment of the suit property by means of perfection of their title for more than 12 years with the knowledge of the defendants, by means of adverse possession of the suit property; and to declare that the plaintiffs have a right to worship being the legal heirs of the ancestors of whose Samadhi gaddige they are holding the honour and privileges as per their family customs and faith; of Somanatha Swamy and shivappa Muthya Samadhi Kshetra, to declare that the suit property and the Samadhis like temples of Shivappa muthya and Somanatha situated in the Sukshetra of 14 guntas of R. S. No. 128/1 including the minor Samadhis of Hanumappa Muthya, of Smt. Yamanawwa, of shivappa, Irappa and Revappa being the ancestoral mortal Samadhis, are of private property and private temples and not the public endowment ; to restrain the defendants permanently from interfering with the peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of the suit property and therefrom disturbing plaintiffs right to worship of their ancestors Samadhi Gadduge-temples of shivappa Muthya and Somanatha and Others ; to award compensatory cost ; to grant any other relief as deemed fit ; to grant permission to amend the plaint as and when necessary. "

( 3 ) ALONG with the suit, the. plaintiffs filed interlocutory application under Order39, Rules 1 and 2 of C. P. C. requesting the Court to grant temporary injunction against the defendants seeking the following reliefs :"be pleased to issue ad interim temporary injunction against the respondents 1 to 7, 9 to 12, 14 and 15 restraining them, their agents and henchmen from interfering with the petitioners for their peaceful enjoyment of the property, i. e. , 14 guntas of Gaddige land described in the schedule below and performance of worship etc. , pending disposal of this civil revision petition in the interest of justice and equity. "relevant portion in the order sheet of dated 2-4-1992 reads :"i. A. No. 1 application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of C. P. C. is filed by plaintiffs Advocate - along with the affidavit of plaintiff No. 7 and witnesses and prayed to issue of T. I. against the defendants their agents, their assignees and servants as prayed for in I. A. I. Heard Register a suit. Issue emergent notice on I. A. 1 and S. S. to defendants by 10/4. "the plaintiffs being dissatisfied with the order of the Court in issuance of emergent notices on I. A. No. 1 have preferred this civil revision petition assailing the legality of the order of the trial Court on I. A. No. 1. The granting of a temporary injunction under the powers conferred by Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 is a matter of judicial discretion. The power given to the Court under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of C. P. C. to decide matters by affidavits is unfettered and not subjected to the provisions of Order 19, rules land 2 of C. P. C.

( 4 ) IN the matter of granting temporary injunctions, it is the duty of the Court totake in to consideration the affidavits and the relevant documents before it records a finding. To entitle a plaintiff to an interlocutory injunction the Court should be satisfied that there is a serious question to be t