The judgment emphasized the limited scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and highlighted the principle that injunction cannot be issued against the true owner unless the party seeking protection of its possession is in settled possession.

Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—This petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the orders of learned Additional District Judge, Solan, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 27-NL/14 of 1999, dated April 19, 2000.

2. It appears, M/s. Lotus Computers, a partnership firm, was allotted Shed No. 12 in the Industrial Area at Baddi in the District of Solan by the respondent-State of Himachal Pradesh in the Department of Industries through respondent No. 3. The allotment was made by a letter dated April 3, 1995 and formal agreement deed (Exhibit D6) was executed on May 16,1995. At the relevant time, Mr. Anil Raheja, Y.P. Raheja and Mrs. Preeti Raheja were the partners of the Lotus Computers.

3. This firm, according to the plaintiffs, was dissolved, by a Dissolution Deed, on March 28,1998. Under the deed of dissolution, Y.P. Raheja and Mrs. Preeti Raheja left the partnership firm and Anil Raheja alone, it was agreed, was to carry on the business. Anil Raheja on April 6, 1998 opened a new partnership firm in the name and style of M/s. Image Maker (Petitioner No. 2) with Parmod Soni, plaintiff No. 2 (petitioner No. 1) as partner to do the business of readymade garments in the shed which was allotted to M/s. Lotus Computers. Lotus Computers had defaulted in the payment of rent as per the terms and conditions of the agreement under which this shed was allotted to it. The allotment, after show cause notice to the respondent, was cancelled on March 20,1996 and the possession of the shed was taken over by the respondent-State of Himachal Pradesh on March 26, 1997.

4. Thereafter, respondent Parmod Soni, according to the respondents, unauthorisedly occupied this shed. Proceedings under the H.P. Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971, ("Eviction Act for short"), were initiated against Parmod Soni, respondent No. 1. Respondent Parmod Soni took a plea that he was not an encroacher and was partner of M/s. Image Maker, respondent No. 2, with Anil Raheja, one of the partner of dissolved firm Lotus Computers. Collector Nalagarh vide his orders dated June 30, 2000 found that possession of the shed in question was resumed by the State Government in terms of the agreement in the year 1996 much before the coming into existence of the firm "Image Makers". He also found that respondent Parmod Soni was not a partner of the original allottee, Lotus Computers and his possession was that of a tresspasser. The Collector concluded that the lease was not created or renewed in favour of M/s. Image Makers by the Government and, therefore, occupation of Shed No. 12 by the petitioner Parmod Soni was unauthorized, illegal. He accordingly, directed the petitioner Parmod Soni to hand over the vacant possession of Shed No. 12, Industrial Area, Baddi, within a period of one month of this order failing which he was directed to be forcibly evicted.

5. Plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is in legal possession of the industrial shed in question and notice or any other order pertaining to the cancellation of the allotment of the shed is illegal, null and void and defendants-respondents have no right to dispossess the plaintiff-petitioner under the notices issued to them. Plaintiff-petitioners also sought a restraint on the defendants from dispossessing them from the industrial shed in question.

6. It may be noticed at this stage that the suit was filed on August 4,1999 before the passing of the orders of eviction of the petitioner Parmod Soni by the Collector, Nalagarh under the "Eviction Act".

7. According to the plaintiffs, defendants were threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from the shed without any reason which act is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction as the plaintiffs were not served with any show cause notice nor were they heard before issuance of the notices. Plaintiffs though admit that a letter was received on January 27, 1997 from defendant-respondent No. 3 threatening to take action ag