In an application for injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the factum of possession of the suit land is one of the main criteria for decision.

Affidavit of Service has been filed from which it appears that the opposite parties have been duly served but no one appears to oppose this revisional application.

2. This revisional application is directed against an order dated 30th May, 1991 passed by Sri T. Mukherjee, learned Assistant District Judge, Second Court, Hooghly in Misc. Appeal No. 124 of 1986 modifying the order of injunction passed by the learned Munsif, 1st Court, serampore, in Title Suit No. 137 of 1984.

3. It appears that two suits being T. S 137 of 84 and T.S. 186 of 1984 have been filed by the parties. Title Suit No. 137 of 84 has been filed by the petitioners as plaintiffs against the defendants opposite parties who are the plaintiffs in Title Suit No 186 of 1984. In connection with the aforesaid two suits, the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 137 of 1984 who are the petitioners before me and the plaintiffs in Title Suit No 186 of 1984 who are the opposite parties to this revisional application filed two separate applications praying for an order of injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure from interfering with the peaceful possession in respect of the suit property till the disposal of the suit. The Trial Court by an order being Order No. 34 dated 18th August, 1986 allowed the application for temporary injunction filed in T.S. 137 of 1984 and rejected the application for temporary injection filed in T.S. 186 of 1984. The appellate Court by the impugned order dated 30th May, 1991 dismissed the Misc. Appeal filed by the opposite parties which came to be registered as Misc. Case 123 of 1986 but the Misc. Appeal No. 24 of 1986 which was preferred by the opposite parties against the order allowing the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner in T.S. 137 of 1984 was allowed in part. It appears from the records that the order passed in the application for temporary injunction filed by the opposite parties in T.S. 186 of 1984 had attained finality as the opposite parties did not prefer any revisional application against the same. So far as the impugned order which was passed in the appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 124 of 1986 filed by the opposite parties against the order allowing the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioners in T.S. 137 of 1984 in concerned, I am of the view that the appellate Court wrongly rejected the prayer for injunction of the petitioner in respect of Plot Nos. 1600/2447, 1601, 1606. The appellate Court has rejected the prayer for injunction of the petitioners in respect of the aforesaid plots only on the ground that the petitioners could not prove their exclusive ownership of the aforesaid plots. In my view, the Appellate Court had acted illegally and with material irregularity in rejecting the prayer for an order of injunction so far as the above plots are concerned.

4. On a plain reading of the statements made in the plaint and the application for injunction and considering the fact that the prayer for injunction of the opposite parties in respect of the abovementioned plots had been rejected, I am of the view that It was difficult for the Court at the time of disposal of the application for injunction filed by the petitioners to hold that the plaintiff could not make out any prima facie case to go to trial in respect of the above plots. The prayer of the opposite parties for injunction in respect of the above plots was rejected by the Trial Court and on appeal preferred by the opposite parties the said order was also affirmed. Therefore, there is no order of injunction in respect of the said plots against the petitioners. As already stated hereinabove the Appellate Court had rejected the prayer for injunction in respect of the above plots on the ground that the abovementioned plots were not recorded either in the name of the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners or in the name of the petitioners From the findings made hereinabove and on consideration of the allegations