The plaintiff's entitlement to seek injunction based on the alleged threat of dispossession must be supported by evidence.

1. The plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge on 14/1/2006, whereby the appeal filed by the defendant was accepted and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that Baba Madan Gopal has given the suit property and the land appurtenant thereto, to the plaintiff for her residence and livelihood. It is the stand of the defendant that the defendant is not giving any threat to the plaintiff to illegally and forcibly dispossess her and that he will take possession from the plaintiff in accordance with law. Baba Madan Gopal, from whom the plaintiff has alleged the licence, has since died. The defendant has filed a counter claim in the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendant that he will not dispossess the plaintiff, except in accordance with law. Therefore, there is nothing on record to show that there is any threat, inspite of such categorical stand of the defendant, which may entitle the plaintiff to seek injunction in the facts of the case.

3. Consequently I do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed in limine.