S.N. BHARGAVA, J.—This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 4-5-89 passed by the Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, allowing application of non-petitioner No. 1 for restoring possession of the disputed property.

2. Non-petitioner No. 1 Navratan Mal Jain filed a civil suit for permanent injunction stating that he had taken the disputed property on rent from the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2 Radhey Shyam since 9th July, 1967 and that the petitioner Radha Kishan had been recovering rent from the very beginning. The petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2 requested the non-petitioner No. 1 to vacate the premises within two days so that they could dispose of the property, failing which the possession will be taken forcibly and therefore, the present suit was filed for permanent injunction against the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2, to restrain them from dispossessing him without due process of law. "

3. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed. An ex-parte injunction order was granted in the following terms:—

^^izfroknhx.k dks tfj;s vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk vkxkeh iskh fnukad 1-9-1989 rd ikcUn fd;k tkrk gS fd fooknxzLr lEifÙk dh fLFkfr dks ;Fkkor~ cuk;s j(ksA**

4. Time was sought to file written statement and also reply to the application for temporary injunction. The non-petitioner No. 1 filed an application u/s 151 C.P.C. for restoration of possession of the shop, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 84/88. He also lodged a report in the police on 12-12-1988 and further an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C, which was registered as Case No. 85/88. According to the petitioner, the shop was never let out to the plaintiff non-petitioner No. 1 and only Nohra in which a Dal Mill was installed, was given on contract of Rs. 300/- per month. Lastly, the contract came to an end on 31-12-1972 and it was never extended nor possession was handed over but the plaintiff non-petitioner No. 1 did not handover possession of the Nohra but instead filed the suit out of which the present revision petition has arisen.

5. He has further submitted that the petitioner did business of fodder in shop and the non-petitioner No. 1 had nothing to do with the shop and the plaintiff was only licensee on the plot measuring 25x 30 in which Dal Mill had been installed. Affidavits were filed by the parties in Misc. Case No. 84/88. The non-petitioner No. 1 submitted four additional affidavits on 20-1-89 which were also taken on record inspite of objection by the petitioner and he was permitted to file counter affidavits, if he so desired by 3-2-1989. The petitioner had also filed an application seeking permission to cross-examine the deponents whose affidavits had been filed but the learned trial court rejected the application observing that the affidavits had been filed in support of the application and its reply but there was no specific order under Order 19 C.P.C. A revision petition had been filed against that order, which was registered as Civil Revision Petition No. 349/1989 by the petitioner but the same was withdrawn; on behalf of the petitioner an application was thereafter filed on 1.5.1989 that since there are disputed questions of fact and that the affidavits filed by the parties have not been treated under Order 19 Rule 1 C.P.C. and no cross-examination had been permitted, wherein it was prayed that oral evidence should be recorded but the said application was also dismissed by the court vide its order dated 1-5-89. This order was challenged in Civil Revision No. 349/89 which was withdrawn by the petitioner on 4.5.89. The trial court vide its impugned order dated 4th May, 1989 directed the petitioner for handing over the possession of the shop to non-petitioner No. 1 and in the event of failure to do so, the non-petitioner No.1 was entitled to take police help. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

6. Arguments were initially heard on 4.7.89 and the case

Click Here to Read the rest of this document