MUSA Vs. BADRI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision by one of the defendants against the appellate order of the District Judge, Alwar granting an application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has brought a suit out of which these proceedings have arisen for perpetual induction restraining the five defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's fitting a motor engine in the well known as Khatiwala and from interfering with the plaintiff's cultivating the land under the said well. The plaintiff's case is that" the defendants No. 1 to 3 i. e. , Sheo Sahai, Musa and Gyarsa had executed a lease for two years i. e. , for the years 2007, 2008 on the 11th of May, 1950 in favour of the plaintiff. On the expiry of term of the lease, the defendants No. 1 to 3 surrendered their possession and the plaintiff came into possession of the fields in dispute. The plaintiff wanted to fit a motor engine in the well, known as Khatiwala, but the defendants interfered with his fitting the said engine. Along with this plaint, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's fitting the motor engine in the well and from interfering with the plaintiff's cultivating the land.

(2.) AN interim injunction was issued by the learned Civil Judge, Alwar on the 28th July, 1952, but on objection by the defendants, it was vacated on the 9th September, 1952. Against this order, the plaintiff went in appeal to the court of District Judge, Alwar who allow the appeal and granted a temporary injunction to the plaintiff asking the defendants to maintain status quo and not interfere with the cultivation of the land in dispute and with the installation of the motor in the well. Against this appellate order of the learned District Judge, the defendant Musa has come in revision to this Court and has also made the remaining four defendants proforma opposite parties.