( 1. ) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/defendant Nos. 17 (wrongly typed as defendant No. 3 in memorandum W.P.), is challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 15-9-10 passed by learned VI Additional District Judge, Rewa in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 24/2010 whereby temporary injunction application of plaintiff dated 7-8-2006 which has been rejected by the learned trial Court, has been allowed by issuing temporary injunction against the petitioner/defendant No. 17.

( 2. ) IN brief, the case of plaintiff is that he has filed a suit for declaration of Bhumiswami right and injunction against the defendant Nos. 1 to 16 in respect of certain agricultural land the description whereof is mentioned in the plaint. An application for issuance of temporary injunction was also filed by him against these defendants. The State of M. P. and Tehsildar, Rewa have been arrayed as defendants No. 1 and 2 respectively. The application for issuance of temporary injunction against all these defendants 1 to 16 which was allowed on 4-2-2003 by learned trial Court and the order was confirmed in Misc. Appeal No. 75/2004 dated 18-4-2006. The order of learned Appellate Court was never challenged by any of the defendants including the State of M. P.V defendant No. 1.

Later on, the present defendant/petitioner was arrayed as defendant No. 17 because on account of subsequent events which took place, as the land in question was leased out to the present petitioner by the State of Madhya Pradesh hence, the plaintiff again filed an application for issuance of temporary injunction against this defendant on 7-8-2006 after impleading him as party (defendant No. 17). In the application, it has been stated that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and is in possession. It has also been stated in the application that earlier the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction against the defendant Nos.1 to 16 and learned trial Court allowed that application which was affirmed by learned First Appellate Court. On account of leasing out the property in question by State of M. P. to the present newly added defendant / petitioner, fresh application has been filed in which it has been stated that plaintiff is having prima facie case since he is Bhumiswami having possession on the suit property and in case, he is dispossessed, he will have to face unreparable loss and balance of convenience also lies in his favour. This application of plaintiffs was opposed by petitioner/defendant No. 17 by filing a reply.

( 3. ) THE learned trial Court, after hearing the parties, rejected the application. However, the Appellate Court, by allowing the appeal of plaintiff has allowed the application of temporary injunction.

( 4. ) IN this manner this petition has been filed. Smt. Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier temporary injunction order which was issued by the Court at that juncture, the present petitioner was not arrayed as defendant and because the present petitioner has been added as defendant No. 17, later on, therefore, earlier temporary injunction order passed against the defendants, is not binding upon it. Learned Counsel submits that on account of bald statement, the plaintiff is not entitled for temporary injunction. In support of her contention, she has placed reliance on certain decisions of Supreme Court, they are Shankar Vijay Saw Mills vs. Union of India and another, (1983) 4 SCC 418. Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. and anr., (1997) 6 SCC 450, Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Government of India and ors., (2004) 10 SCC 779, Dinesh Mathur vs. O. P. Arora and others (1997) 10 SCC 520 and Rame Gowda (Dead) by LRs. vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by LRs. and another, (2004) 1 SCC 769. By placing heavy reliance on the decision of Rameshwar and ors. vs. Jotram and ors., AIR (1976) SC page 49, it has been put forth by the learned counsel that