1. - By this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 21.08.2003 (Annex.-6) passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bikaner (hereinafter, 'the trial Court') in the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2, read with Section 151, C.P.C. as well as judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Bikaner dated 13.12.2003 in Appeal No.154/2003 whereby the appellate Court affirmed the order passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

2. According to facts, inter alia, stated in the writ petition, the petitioned filed a suit for permanent injunction before the trial Court and prayed that the respondents may be restrained from dispossessing him from the property in question and further from causing any damages to the petitioner. In the writ petition, at para 2, the petitioner has set out the controversy as under :

"Whether respondent Bank can dispossess any person from its property without any decree of possession and eviction and without due order of courts on the basis of decree passed under Sec.118 of Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 for recovery of amount ?"

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is having a firm in the name and style of Joda Industries set up in village Udairamsar and, for the purpose of business, he took loan from the respondent Bank. It is admitted position that due to certain circumstances the petitioner could not repay the loan amount and the respondent Bank initiated recovery proceedings under the provisions of Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (for short, to be called 'the Act' hereinafter) which was subsequently amended vide Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001. It is submitted that under Section 117 of the Act notice was given to the petitioner wherein an amount of Rs.3,56,430/- was shown as outstanding against the petitioner. After due process, a decree under Section 118 of the Act was passed against the petitioner on 25.05.2002. In pursuance of the said decree, warrant of attachment of the property of the petitioner was issued under Section 118, read with Rule92(3) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966 (for short, to be called 'the Rules' hereinafter).

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid Act was specifically enacted for the purpose of implementing the recommendations of the Rural Credit Survey and the Schemes of Cooperative Development and with a view to providing simple and uniform legislation on the subject. It is submitted that there is no provision in the Act for passing a decree of possession or eviction and, for the said purpose, the State legislature enacted Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The said Act was amended from time to time.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent bank, on the basis of the decree passed under Section 118 of the Act, is trying to forcibly dispossess the petitioner and for the said purpose, the respondent No.1 issued letter to the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner on 06.08.2003 for taking possession of the property. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction alongwith application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C. for temporary injunction in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Bikaner. The learned trial Court dismissed the said application and while deciding the application for temporary injunction, objections with regard to balance of convenience, prima facie case and irreparable loss were taken into account. It is observed that there is no prima facie case made out because the petitioner took loan from the Bank and he could not repay the loan. While considering the second objection of balance of convenience, the learned trial Court has ignored the material question that the present suit is for permanent injunction and, in that suit, the petitioner has not challenged the recovery proceedings; but, he has pr