ORDER:- This is a petition to revise the order of the learned District Judge, Manipur, vacating the order of temporary injunction granted by the Subordinate Judge in favour of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner filed the suit for a declaration of title to a land covered by Dag No.2580 under patta No.51/1370 against the respondent. His case was that he and one Joy Singh purchased the said land along with another land Dag No.2581, which was also then included in the said patta number, in a Revenue auction, that the said auction was confirmed in 1942, that since then they have been in possession paying the revenue, that subsequently, on their application the two lands were partitioned in revenue case No.106 of 1950-51-B. T., and a separate patta issued to Joy Singh for the land under Dag No.2581, while Dag No.2580 remained in the old patta number, that in 1958 the petitioner came to know that the respondent had managed to get his name mutated for patta No.51/1370 behind the back of the petitioner, that he applied for cancellation of the respondents name from the patta which was allowed by the S.D.C, but was later disallowed in appeal and hence he had to come forward with a suit for declaration by filing T.S. No.1/3 of 1960.

3. The respondent contested the suit and stated that the petitioner was not in possession of the property, that the respondent became the owner of the property by virtue of an oral transaction for Rs.300/- in the year, 1947 and that the suit for a. mere declaration would not lie. In the meantime, the petitioner applied for a temporary injunction against the respondent under Order 39, Rule 1 C.P.C. stating that after the suit was filed the respondent with his men was attempting to interfere with the petitioners possession of the land through his tenants and threatening to beat his tenants. The respondent, of course, denied this.

4. The learned Subordinate Judge granted a temporary injunction to the petitioner stating that the respondent had not even disclosed from whom he got the land by oral purchase in 1947, while the petitioner through his relevant documents has prima facie proved his case of possession. The learned Subordinate Judge did not discuss file documents produced in the case before coming to the conclusion regarding the prima facie case of the petitioner. The respondent took the matter in appeal to the District Judge and the District Judge appears to have mainly relied on the fact that the respondent had produced the auction receipt for the purchase of the property in the Revenue Auction by the petitioner and Joy Singh in 1942 and on the fact that the petitioners tenant was in possession, that he was not a party to the suit, that the petitioner could leave his tenant to take care of his own rights, that the petitioner could claim exemplary damages from the respondent if he succeeded in the suit and that the petitioner will not suffer irreparable loss if the injunction was vacated. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and vacated the temporary injunction. Thereupon the petitioner has come up in revision. It will be seen that the District Judge also did not consider the documents produced by the petitioner in support of his case of title and possession. It is better that the lower Courts in dealing with such applications discuss the documents of the parties in support of their respective cases before they decide whether a temporary injunction should be granted or not.

5. I do not propose to discuss the documents in this revision. But I must say that the production of the auction receipt by the respondent did not prove any title in the respondent and the learned District Judge erred in relying on that document, as it did not prove the case of the respondent in any way. Again, the petitioner had every right to defend the possession of his tenant and he was entitled to apply for temporary injunction to protect the possession of his tenant, which was on his own behalf even though the tenant was not party to th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document