- (1.) Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
(2.) In Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 2014 for specific performance of contract, the trial Court rejected the application at Exh.10 on 12.06.2015 for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. In Misc. Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2015, preferred by the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court has set aside the decision of the trial Court on 15.07.2015 and the application at Exh. 10 has been allowed, granting injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing and interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property pending the decision of the suit.
(3.) The Court has to find out whether prima facie the plaintiff has proved his possession over the suit property. The lower appellate Court has relied upon the agreement for extension of time executed between the parties on 31.03.2011, 28.02.2012 and 28.02.2013, wherein a clause is contained to the effect that the plaintiff shall be at liberty take electric meter, water meter in his name in the suit property. The lower appellate Court has also relied upon the Municipal Assessment for the year 201213 to 201516 indicating the name of the plaintiff as the occupant of the suit property and proprietor of a hotel namely "Gopal Tea House". The finding of fact recorded by the lower appellate is based on the evidence available on record. Though the trial Court has found that the plaintiff had failed to establish his possession, the lower appellate Court has reversed such finding. Being a possible view of the matter, no interference is called for in the order impugned.;