An assurance by a defendant that it will not interfere with the plaintiff's possession in the future is not sufficient to set aside a perpetual injunction granted to prevent future mischief and multiplicity of judicial proceedings in an action for trespass.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff brought a suit, against the Mandi Committee Gulabganj, Bhilsa, alleging that on his field (the Survey numbers of which are 133 and 135/3), and the area of which is 21 Bighas 16 Bishwas) the Mandi Committee had made an encroachment and that it wanted to establish a bullock-cart part there. With this end in view, the Mandi Committee had had the grass standing in the field cut. In the written statement the Mandi Committee stated that proceedings for the acquisition of the land were pending and while denying that they dispossessed the plaintiff of the land, it was admitted that they had got 2 or 3 Bighas of the ground cleared of the grass. The suit is thus in respect of a trespass that the defendant has committed and the plaintiff sought a perpetual injunction against the Mandi Committee. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the land in dispute belonged to the plaintiff and that the defendant's encroachment was not lawful. The trial court also issued a perpetual injunction against the Mandi Committee. On an appeal being filed by the mandi Committee, the District Judge, Guna; allowed the appeal with costs and set aside the perpetual injunction. Aggrieved by this decision, the plaintiff has filed this second appeal.

( 2 ) IT seems that the learned District Judge has set aside the injunction on the assurance which the Mandi Committee gave that in the future they shall not interfere with the possession of the plaintiff, and for that reason also the court awarded costs against the plaintiff. I am afraid the approach of the learned District judge is not at all correct. The Mandi Committee having encroached upon the land of the plaintiff gave him cause for filing this suit. If once it is established that the defendant has trespassed, as it is proved in this case, then mere assurance by the mandi Committee, the members of which will keep on changing, is not enough to set aside the perpetual injunction. As a matter of fact the Mandi Committee having once trespassed upon the land of the plaintiff, there is no guarantee that in the future they shall not do the same.

( 3 ) MR. Patankar, the learned counsel for the Mandi Committee, says that the Mandi committee never acquired possession of the lands of the plaintiff. I fail to understand the sense in which he talks of possession. There is no doubt that the mandi Committee by clearing part of the field made an encroachment and trespassed upon the land of the plaintiff for which an action does lie.

( 4 ) MR. Patankar also contends that since the Mandi Committee has given an assurance that it will not in the future commit any trespass, no in-junction can be issued against it and he has referred to Section 54 of the Specific Belief Act. But I find nothing in the section which says that in the circumstances similar to the present case a per-petual injunction would not go. In fact one of the objects for which a perpetual injunction is issued is to prevent future mischief and multiplicity of judicial proceedings. If the Mandi Committee in its arrogance did get hold of the field of the plaintiff and had it unlawfully cleared of the grass that was growing there, then there being no security for the future, a perpetual injunction is desirable.

( 5 ) MR. Patankar, also read out a passage from the treatise on the Law of injunctions by C. M. Row at page 357 to the effect that"where a frespass has been committed by the defendant, but has been discontinued before the suit is brought, the court will not interfere by injunction to restrain the defendant from contintu-ing such trespass. "

This passage is based on a decision of the Bombay High Court reported in chabildas Lallubhai v. Municipal Commrs. , Bombay, 8 Bom HC (OC) 85 (A ). But the facts of the case are not given in the book and it is difficult to appreciate the circumstances in which these observations were made. The passage quoted in the text book however cannot be treated as an authority for the propositio