1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution takes exception to the order passed by the trial Court dated 20.12.2013 whereby the application of the present petitioner-defendant preferred under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 was rejected by the trial Court. The order passed in Miscellaneous Appeals No. 4/14 and 9/14 is also called in question whereby the lower appellate Court in exercise of power under Order 43 rule 1 CPC passed injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.

2. The necessary facts for adjudication of this order are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction (Annexure P-3). Along with the said suit, he filed an application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 CPC (Annexure P-4). The present petitioner therein filed his counter-claim and application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 (Annexure P-5). In the said counter-claim, he also prayed for grant of injunction. The trial Court heard the parties and passed the order dated 20.12.2013 (Annexure P-2).

3. Shri H.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the property in question is situated at survey No. 1976, Gram Gospura. The said property is recorded in the revenue records in the name of petitioner’s father, late Prem Narayan Mishra, who was a freedom fighter. It is the case of the petitioner that a rent agreement (Annexure P-10) was entered into between the petitioner and one Shri Sudhir Singh Parihar. As per the said agreement, the land in question was manned by said Sudhir Singh Parihar for some time. However, the said rent agreement came to an end on 31.3.2013. It is contended by Shri Shukla that on 2.10.2013 the respondent-defendant forcibly entered into the property and took possession of it. A complaint was lodged in police station Thatipur on 3.10.2013 (Annexure P-7). It was followed by other complaints seeking protection from the police authorities. These complaints dated 10.10.2013 (Annexure P-8) and 21.10.2013 (Annexure P-9) are placed on record. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-defendant was never engaged as a tenant and he had forcibly taken possession of the property. The same stand is taken in the counter claim and the counter application. Shri Shukla referred para 3 of the plaint filed by the plaintiff, wherein it is averred that the rent was regularly paid by him to the present petitioner and entry in this regard is mentioned in the diary kept by the plaintiff in the handwriting of the present petitioner. He submits that this best evidence was not produced before the Courts below which shows that the whole story of plaintiff is concocted and like house of cards.

4. The trial Court in order dated 20.12.2013 opined that the property in question is in the name of ”Mangal Marriage Garden”. The statutory authority under M.P. Shop and Establishment Act, 1958 issued a registration certificate dated 22.10.2010 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. Apart from this, the trial Court has taken note of various documents which show that the said marriage garden was booked by the respondent/plaintiff. The stand of respondent-plaintiff was recorded that he is tenant at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per year. The trial Court after considering the documents filed by the plaintiff opined that the electricity bill was actually paid by the plaintiff. There exist internent connection and telephone connection for which payment is being made by the plaintiff. The trial Court gave a finding that the property tax for the period 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2013 is Rs.83621/- and, therefore, it is difficult to accept that plaintiff can be a tenant at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per year only. On the basis of reasons assigned in the said order, the trial Court opined that although plaintiff is in possession of the property, his possession is in the capacity of encroacher and, therefore, he cannot be permitted to enjoy injunction. The claim of present petitioner for injunction was also rejected on the ground that the