( 1. ) PETTY politicking in Nagar Palika has dragged a poor Pan wala to the Court seeking protection against imminent uprootment of his gumati quick in action the Nagar Palika has removed the Gumati, before the Court could come to his rescue, thus left in bewilderment on the street, the Panwala in his bid, succeeded in obtaining an order of restoration of gumati to its original place, feeling more humbled than aggrieved, the nagar Palika has come in revision against the order of restoration.

( 2. ) THIS revision petition, preferred by the Municipal Council, Mand-leshwar, is against the order dated 5-3-1984, passed by the Civil Judge, class II, Mandleshwar, in Civil Suit No, 9a of 1984, thereby directing the petitioner-defendant to restore the plaintiff-respondents gumati to its position and place as it was obtaining at 11. 00 a. m. on 22-2-1984. It is this mandatory injunction granted by the trial Court, which has been made the subject-matter of challenge in this revision petition.

( 3. ) THE moot question, which arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction can this Court interfere in the discretionary order passed by the trial Court, taking into account all the prevailing attending circumstances ? ( 4. ) IT is well established that the revisional power of the High Court is confined only to cases where the Court below has acted in excess of its jurisdiction or has refused to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it. by law or has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. It is to be further borne in rrfind that the exercise of jurisdiction under section 115, Civil Procedure Code, by the High Court is discretionary and the High Court is not bound to interfere merely because the conditions in clauses (a), (b) or (c) of that section are satisfied. While exercising its discretion the Court can take into consideration such circumstances and facts as may disentitle the petitioner in a revision petition from being granted any relief. One of such relevant considerations would be whether the order sought to be revised has occasioned substantial failure of justice.

( 5. ) FACTS material for answering the aforesaid question is that the respondent-plaintiff had his Pan-shop, a small gumati, on a piece of land, admeasuring 6 x 6, granted to him on a lease for one year on a monthly rent of Rs. 20. Tfie period of lease had expired and according to the petitioner on 30-11-1983 during the subsistence of the lease the respondent-plaintiff had applied to the Administrator of the Municipal Council for extension of the lease for another period of three years and his application was rejected on 26-2-1984, after the date of expiry of the lease dated 30-11-1983. The Municipal Council issued a notice on 20-1-1984, directing 1984 M. P. L. J. ] M. C, Mandleshwar v. Ramesh Mangilal 635 the -respondent to remove his Gumati within a week. This notice was served on the respondent on 24-1-1984. As the Gumati was not removed within the period of 7 days, the Chief Municipal Officer directed, the revenue Inspector of the Municipal Council, who removed the Gumati from the place on 22-2-1984.

( 6. ) ON 22-2-1984 the plaintiff-respondent filed s suit for a permanent injunction. It was accompanied by an application for an ad interim injunction, supported by his own affidavit as also the affidavit of Mahendrakumar and Radheshyam. These affidavits reveal that the land granted on lease to the plaintiff-respondent was at a low level on the road-crossing near bus-stand-Mandleshwar, which was reclaimed by the plaintiff-respondent by filling about 40 trucks load of metal and Murram, thus spending a huge amount so as to bring the land to the road level. He had his own electric connection in the Gumati. The plaintiff-respondent has- stated on oath that the President and the Vice-President of the Municipal Council, Mandleshwar, bore personal grudge against him and the thr