The court has the power to order restoration of possession when there has been a violation of an injunction order. Improvements made by the defendants after the dispossession do not justify denying the plaintiff's right to possession.

1. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 21-4-1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hissar, affirming in appeal the judgement and decree dt./-21-3-1986 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Hissar whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was decreed ex parte holding that it is entitled to the restoration of possession of the property mentioned in the heading of the plaint and ordering restoration accordingly and further restraining the defendants from dispossessing it from the premises in dispute without following the due course of law.

2. The facts in brief are that respondent No. 1 through its proprietor Harbans Lal Aggrawal filed a suit on 5-6-1981 for permanent injunction restraining defendants Nos. 1 to 5 (who are appellants Nos. 2 to 4 and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in the present appeal) from taking forcible possession of the Dal Factory including machinery and Dal Plant situated at Balasmand Road, Hissar, without due process of law. The boundaries and the location of the factory were described in the plaint which are not in dispute. Respondent No. 1 alleged that it is in possession of the factory in dispute as its lessee for a period of 99 years; that an ejectment application was filed against it by appellant No. 2 which was pending in the Court of the learned Senior Sub Judge, Hissar, and was fixed for 20-8-1983 for the remaining evidence; that the ejectment application was false and frivolous and was liable to be dismissed; and that appellant No. 2 on account of frustration wanted to dispossess respondent No. 1 forcibly and without due process of law. For this purpose, he had agreed to sell the factory to appellants Nos. 3 and 4 and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 who, being forceful persons, would not care for the law of the land and there is apprehension that respondent No. 1 may be dispossessed. It was further alleged that appellant No. 3 came to respondent No. 1 a day earlier and required it to vacate the premises within a week or else the same would be got vacated by force. It was alleged that the aforesaid defendants had no right to dispossess respondent No. 1 by force. Along with the suit, an application for grant of a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing plaintiff-respondent No. 1 from the factory was also filed. Notice of the suit was issued to the defendants and vide order dated 5-6-1981 they were restrained from forcibly dispossessing respondent No. 1 and were required to show cause why the said interim injunction be not made absolute. Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 put in appearance through their counsel Shri M.P. Aggrawal. Written statement dt./- 21-14-1981 was filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 who pleaded that the factory had been purchased by Smt. Maya Devi vide sale deed dt. 19-6-1981 and she had leased out the premises to M/s. Siri Sham Cotton Factory which is in possession of the factory in dispute at the spot. They pleaded that the suit against them had been filed with an ulterior motive. Ram Kumar defendant No. 1, however, did not file his written statement. Respondent No. 1 moved an application under O.I, R.10, Civil P. C. stating therein that since the property had been sold by defendant No. 1 to Smt. Maya Devi vide registered sale deed dt./- 19-6-1981 and she is interfering with its possession, she may be impleaded in the suit as defendant No. 6. This application was allowed and amended plaint was filed. Notice was issued to Smt. Maya Devi defendant No. 6, who filed her written statement dt./- 30-11-1982 through her counsel Shri O.P. Jain Advocate. To the specific averment in the plaint the respondent No. 1 was in possession of the factory as a lessee, her reply in Para. 3 of the written statement is that of bare denial. She stated that the factory and the building in dispute were purchased by her vide sale deed dt/- 19-6-1981 and thereafter she leased it out to M/s. Siri Sham Cotton Facto