Honble KAPUR, J. – The plaintiff filed a suit for grant of permanent injunction and alongwith the suit he has also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction which was dismissed by the trial court namely the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer (West) by his order dated 12.8.1987. He has preferred an appeal against this order which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Ajmer by order dated 17th August, 1993. Against the concurrent findings of both the courts below the petitioner has filed this revision petition. According to him the courts below have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them and on this ground, the revision can be entertained before this Court and relief can be granted.

(2) The facts in brief are that the petitioner purchased a portion of the property belonging to Ram Niwas in the year 1969 and after some time he constructed a room on this plot. Towards the south of this property there was open plot of Ram Niwas and the petitioner started using this land for storing firewood etc. Subsequently, in the years 1980 Ram Niwas sold the remaining land to the four non-petitioners. The petitioner filed a suit in the year 1986 claiming protection from dispossession without due process of law on the ground of long possession. He also pleaded that Ram Niwas treated him as a tenant in this open land. Both the courts below have considered the material and arrived at the conclusion that under Section 41 B of the Specific Relief Act, injunction cannot be granted restraining a person from taking legal proceedings and that a trespasser cannot be given an in- junction in his favour against the true owner of the property.

(3) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(4) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he is in possession over the land for a long period and he cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law and for this purpose the relief of temporary injunction should be granted during the pendency of the suit. According to him, his long possession is sufficient to make out a prima facie case in his favour. He has placed reliance on M/s. Chandra & Com. vs. State of Rajasthan (1), wherein it was held that a person in possession of public premises cannot be dispossessed by State Officers without due process of law. The government should first initiate proceedings as provided in Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (Rajasthan). In M/s. Wire Netting Stores vs. Delhi Development Authority (2) it was held that the unauthorised occupants can be evicted by following procedure of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 as an opportunity of showing cause against the proposed eviction was not given. In both these cases, relief was granted in writ petitions. Relying on T.N. Indrani Devi vs. Municipal Board Imphal (3) it is contended that while considering whether the plaintiff has prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction it only means whether there is serious question to be tried and where there is a probability of success if the allegations of fact made by the plaintiff are proved, then injunction should be granted..

(5) The learned counsel for the non-petitioners has contended that a trespasser cannot be granted eqitable relief as against the real owner. He is a wrong doer and should not be allowed premium over it. According to him, grant of injunction is an equitable as well as discretionary relief and when the courts below have refused to grant temporary injunction this Court should not interfere in revi- sion petition to grant such relief. In K.V. Narayan vs. S. Sharana Gowda and another (4) it has been held that a tres-passer in possession is not entitled to injunction against a true owner. Quoting Nelsons Law of Injunctions, Sectond Edition, page 157 it has been stated :

"Trespasser cannot seek injunction against State to protect his posse- ssion. Trespasser has no equities in his favour nor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document