( 1 ) THIS revision has been referred to a Bench of three Judges because of a conflict in some reported decisions of some High Courts about the maintainability of a suit for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the premises which were held by him as a licensee and has been determined.

( 2 ) IN the trial Court, the following two preliminary issues were settled on the basis of the preliminary objections :

"1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff lies in the present form ?

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in favour of the plaintiff, whether the plaint is not properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction ?"

( 3 ) THE trial Court held, following the decisions of the Punjab High Court, that the suit was competent in the present form. On issue No. 2, it was held that the present suit being one for injunction, it had been correctly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction.

( 4 ) BEFORE us, Shri Dina Nath Bhasin, the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner, has read out the plaint as amended. According to the averments in the plaint, the defendant used to get grinded at the plaintiff s mill (Raj Grinding Mill) dal and basen at a certain