In a case where a party was in actual physical possession on the date when the proceedings under Section 145 had started, and in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. , it is ultimately held so, then though civil court will have jurisdiction to issue an injunction if proper case will be made out, but a fairly good prima facie case should be made out to discharge the burden which the plaintiff has upon him as a result of the order of the Magistrate in favor of the other party.

M. B. SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) BOTH the revision petitions arise out of the judgment dated March 18, 1976, of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur under which the learned Judge dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 27/72 and 26/72 preferred before him out of miscellaneous proceedings under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C arising out of two suits Nos. 281/71 and 258/71, filed by Manoharsingh, non-petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") in the trial court. Under the aforesaid judgment, the learned Judge affirmed the order of the trial court issuing a temporary injunction against the petitioners and others restraining them from taking possession of the suit property under any order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 60/660 (of This Court) under Section 145, Cr. P. C. or otherwise fill the decision of the suits. Plaintiff, firstly, filed a suit No. 258/71 in the court of learned Munsif against Nane Shah and Shankerlal, Smt. Ratandevi, Smt. Prembai, all legal representatives of one Ramkumar Garg and also against Kahisingh for a declaration that he is a tenant of Ramkumar Garg and for permanent injunction. In the suit, it was stated that he has been inducted as a tenant by Kalusingh general power of attorney holder (Mukhtiar Aam) of Ram Kumar and he was not bound by the order of the criminal court passed in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. under which it was directed that the possession be delivered to Nane Shah and his tenants. A relief for permanent injunction was also claimed that he should not he dispossessed under the order at the criminal court and can only be evicted by due process of law. An application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. was filed and an ex parte temporary injunction was issued as prayed for which later on was confirmed. As in the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff, the tenants of Nane Shah, namely, Chhaganlal, Smt. Ratandevi, Mangilal. Hazarjlal, Prabhulal, who were in possession as tenants at hip time when the subject of dispute was attached by the City Magistrate in proceedings under Section 145. Cr. P. C. were net parties and were also ordered to be given possession by this Court, the second suit No. 281/71 was filed by the plaintiff against Nane Shah and the aforesaid tenants and in that suit also an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2. C PC was filed and a temporary injunction in the terms staled earlier, was passed re-straining Nane Shah and his abovenamed tenants from dispossessing the plaintiff under the order of the criminal court. That order was also later on confirmed. Two appeals were filed and the learned Additional District Judge, Jodhpur. as already stated earlier, affirmed the orders of temporary injunction issued by the trial court in both the suits. Two revisions have been preferred in this Court and as identical questions are involved, they are being disposed of together.

( 2 ) THE contention of the learned advocate for Nane Shah and his tenants is that there was an order if the criminal court in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. that on the day the subject of the dispute was attached Nane Shah and his abovenamed five tenants were in possession and that the possession should be handed over to them. He therefore, submits that in view of the aforesaid order both the courts have erred in holding that there was a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. According to him in arriving at a finding that there was a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, the lower courts below have not taken into consideration some material evidence on record and, therefore, the aforesaid finding of The learned courts is vitiated. It is also contended that in view of a clear finding of the High Court while dropping the proceedings under Section 145. Cr. P. C under order dated April 20, 1971, that on the day the suit property was attached in proceedings under Section 145. Cr. P. C. Nane Shah