( 1 ) THE plaintiff-applicants, aggrieved by the orders passed by the Additional District 'judge, Sheopurkalan in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 54 of 1983, have invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2 ) THIS revision was taken up on 13-1-1984 and the notices were ordered to be issued to the defendant-respondents on the point of admission. Today, Shri R. C. Lahoti appears for the respondents.

( 3 ) BOTH the parties are heard.

( 4 ) SHORT facts, giving rise to this revision, are that the applicants filed Civil Suit No. 134-A of 1983 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge Class I, Sheopurkalan. Their case was that they were sitting as hawkers on the pavement and had constructed wooden temporary structures. Nagar Palik Parishad of Sheopur-Kalan wanted to construct pucca shops, 53 in number, investing about five lacs of rupees. At that time, Nagar Palika Parishad gave them oral assurance that after construction of the shops, the applicants shall be allotted some of the shops. On this oral assurance, they were sitting on the pavements for selling their wares. They further averred in the plaint that after construction of the shops, they came into the possession of these shops and the Nagar Palika Sheopurkalan is now threatening to evict them and that is why they prayed for declaration and permanent injunction. Along with the plaint, they also filed an application under Order 39 Rr. 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for issuance of temporary injunction against the Nagar Palika Parishad directing it not to evict them from the shops, which are in their possession.

( 5 ) THE trial Court, after considering the material before it, rejected this application of the plaintiff-applicants. Aggrieved by this order, they preferred a miscellaneous appeal before the first appellate Court. On 2-1-1984, the first appellate Court too, dismissed their appeal. Aggrieved by this order, they have filed this revision petition in this Court.

( 6 ) THEY also filed I. A. No. 267 of 1984, praying that the non-applicants be directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the disputed shops, forcibly, till the decision of this revision petition.

( 7 ) SHRI N. M. Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants, when filed the suit, were in possession of the Nagar Palika shops and hence both the Courts below have wrongly refused to maintain the status quo as existed on the date of the suit. He further submitted that the applicants, at this stage, are not required to establish their title because for granting temporary injunction the question of title is wholly irrelevant. According to him, both the Courts below should have kept in view the actual physical possession of the applicants over the Palika shops. In support of his submission, he has cited the cases of Durg Transport Co. v. Regional Transport Authority AIR 1965 Madh Pra 142, Aliahmed v. B. K. Pateria 1970 Jab LJ 999 Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh AIR 1968 SC 620 and numerous cases of this High Court.

( 8 ) THE first appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal of the applicants, has arrived at the following findings. (1) Applicants have no prima facie case and they have without any right and without any permission from the Nagar Palika Authorities, forcibly occupied the shops and are in unlawful possession. (2) There is no balance of convenience in favour of the applicants. (3) The conclusion arrived at by the trial Court on facts is just and proper. ( 9 ) RULE 1 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down the circumstances under which a temporary injunction can be granted. Unless those circumstances exist, Court has no jurisdiction to grant it. But the fact that those circumstances exist does not compel the Court to grant it in all cases inasmuch as the rule only says that in the cases mentioned therein, the Court may grant an injunction. Thus, the granting of an injun