The court has the discretion to not interfere with an order even if it exceeds jurisdiction, based on the circumstances and facts of the case.

T. Vaiphei, J.

1. By this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner is assailing the legality or otherwise of the judgment and order dated 22.11.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 11/02 affirming the judgment and order dated 3.10.2002 passed by the trial Court dismissing the application for temporary injunction filed by the respondent herein.

2. Heard Mr. H. Sarkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. B. Das, learned senior counsel for the respondents.

3. To appreciate the controversy involved in this case, the material facts of the case may be briefly stated. The plaintiff-respondents (hereinafter called "the respondent") filed Title Suit No. 20/2002 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), South Tripura, Udaipur against the defendant/petitioner for declaration that the respondent is entitled to 2 annas share of the priestship for the Siva Puja of Sree Mata Tripura Sundari Devi in a year and also declaration that she is entitled to choose from the priest family to do such Shiva Puja on her behalf with a perpetual injunction to restrain the petitioner and his men from performing Shiva Puja on her behalf with a further declaration that the registered sale deed dated 24.11.1984 executed by her in favour of the petitioner is void and inoperative. The respondent also prayed for temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from performing the Shiva Puja pending disposal of the suit. The Ld. Civil Judge by the judgment and order dated 3.10.2002 in Civil Misc. No. 25/2002 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred an appeal being Civil Misc. Appeal No. 11/2002 against the said judgment and order. The Ld. District Judge by the impugned judgment and order disposed of the appeal allowing the petitioner to perform the Shiva Puja and directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 500 (Rupees five hundred only) per month to the respondent out of the income earned from performing the Shiva Puja. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he has already purchased 2 annas share of the priestship of the respondent for valuable consideration as per the said registered sale deed and has since the purchase been performing the Shiva Puja as of right. The registered sale deed is at Annexure C. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent as emerged from the written statement that she never executed the said sale deed and that all that she executed was a deed of Power of Attorney.

5. The Ld. Civil Judge held that since the sale deed in question is in force, the same having been not yet cancelled, the respondent has no cause of action and accordingly, the respondent is not entitled to temporary injunction against the petitioner as prayed for. The application for temporary injunction was thus rejected. The appellate Court, however, did not give any finding on whether the respondent/ plaintiff has a prima facie case. He, however, observes that no money receipt could be shown by the petitioner that the balance amount of Rs. 6,500 as consideration for the sale of the priesthood was paid by him. It is also the winding of the ld. District Judge that the respondent is 80/82 years old and has no source of livelihood and that sufficient income is earned from performing Shiva Puja by the petitioner. It is apparently upon the above findings that the Ld. District Judge directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 500 per month to the respondent even though he thought it fit not to grant temporary injunction.

6. Mr. H. Sarkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the direction of the Ld. District Judge for payment of Rs. 500 to the respondent is not sustainable in law since this particular relief is not prayed for by the respondent in the suit or in the application for temporary injunction. By giving this direction,