Honble SHARMA, J.–Instant revision impugns the order dated January 17, 1998 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Raisinghnagar, whereby the application under Order 26, Rule 9 CPC, moved by the plaintiff-non-petitioner (for short the plaintiff) was allowed and Commissioner was appointed for making enquiry about the fact of possession of the plot in dispute.

(2). Brief resume of the facts is that the plaintiff instituted a suit for injunction against the defendant petitioners (for shot the defendants) in the trial court, seeking relief that the defendants be restrained from transferring plot No.14 situated in Industrial Area, Raisinghnagar, in their names either by way of lease or by way of a sale deed. It was also prayed that the defendants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the said plot. Alongwith the plaint, an application seeking temporary injunction was also filed by the plaintiff. Learned trial court allowed the application and restrained the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and encroaching upon the suit plot. The Additional District Judge, however allowed the appeal of the defendants preferred under Order 43, Rule 1 CPC

Click Here to Read the rest of this document