R.K.VERMA, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision filed by applicant defendant No.2 against the order dated 20 -1 -1984 passed by the IInd Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Dhar in Misc. Appeal No.1 of 1984 whereby the appellate Court has reversed the order dated 29 -12 -1983 passed by the Civil Judge, Class II, Dhar in Civil Suit No. 202 of 1983 and granted temporary injunction to the plaintiff non applicant No. 1.
(2.) THE plaintiff has brought the instant suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the allegation that in the year 1950 the plaintiff and one Kaluram the deceased husband of the applicant defendant No.2 had jointly purchased the 'Pan Gumti' existing on the suit plot admeasuring 6'X6' from one Badrilal who was a lessee from the Dhar Municipality. In the year 1968 the plot in question was treated as Nazul and the lease could duly be renewed by the State Government. In the year 1975 the 'Gumti' was removed from the plot on the ground that it was an encroachment. It appears that a Patta (lease) was granted in favour of defendant No.2 Kaushalyabai in 1976 -77 on her application, she being a widow of ex -serviceman Kaluram. The plaintiff's application was rejected by the Revenue Authorities throughout. The plaintiff alleges that he has been putting his 'Pan Thela' on the suit plot after removal of the 'Gumti' in the year 1975 and as such he claims to be in possession. In para 4 of the plaint, the plaintiff has alleged that after 1968 the suit plot came under Nazul Administration and the plots in respect of which Dhar Municipality used to renew the lease, the Nazul Department renewed the leases. It is not the case of the plaintiff that there was renewal of lease of suit plot either by the municipality or by the Nazul Department at any time in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was treated to be an encroacher on Nazul land and his 'Gumti', which was a structure standing on suit plot, was demolished and removed in the year 1975 by the Collector and a patta (lease) was instead granted in favour of defendant No.2 Kaushalyabai in 1976 -77 as aforesaid. It appears that the plaintiff challenged the grant of patta in favour of Kaushalyabai before the Additional Commissioner, Indore and State Government, but without success. In the instant suit for declaration and permanent injunction the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction which was opposed by the defendant No.2. The trial Court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction by order dated 29 -12 -1983. Against the order of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Second Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Dhar who has by the order under revision allowed the appeal and granted temporary injunction against the defendants.
(3.) THE defendant No.2 being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed the present revision.;