K.S.LODHA,J. - (1.)THIS is defendant's revision against the order of the learned Addl Civil Judge No. 1., Jodhpur dated 26.8.83 accepting the plaintiff's appeal against the order of the learned Addl. Munsiff No. 1, Jodhpur, dated 12.12.82 refusing temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff, thereby granting an injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
(2.)THE facts giving rise to this revision briefly stated are that the present petitioner Surajmal had filed a suit against Sevagram, who is defendant No. 2 in the present suit alleging that he was the tenant of the petitioner in respect of the shop with effect from 20.3.65 under a written rent note, which he had executed in favour of the petitioner as proprietor of M/s India Motors. In that suit summons were issued to Sevag Ram but he was not served and thereafter substituted service was directed against him. The summons were published in Tarun Rajasthan but despite that service, Sevag Ram did not appear. While the suit was under proceedings, the non-petitioner No. 1 Jaffarullah moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. for being impleaded as a party to that suit alleging that he was the real tenant of the shop and that Sevag Ram was not the tenant and the suit had wrongly been filed by Suraj Mal against Sevag Ram. Therefore, non-petitioner No. 1 Jaffarullah should be impleaded as a party to that suit in order to safeguard his rights. This application was, however, dismissed on 1.5.1978 and a revision filed by Shri Jafarullah was also dismissed by this Court. Thereafter an ex parte decree was passed against Sevag Ram in that suit on 18.12.78.
Now Jafarullah has filed the present suit for getting that decree set aside, alleging that he was the tenant of Suraj Mal in the premises in dispute. He had neither entered the shop as a sub-tenant of Sevag Ram nor his transferor, Suraj Mal cannot execute that decree against the present plaintiff non-petitioner No. 1. His case further was that he had paid rent of the plaintiff and had produced a receipt in that respect. Along with the suit, the plaintiff also applied for a temporary injunction restraining Suraj Mal from ejecting him from the premises in dispute in execution of the aforesaid ex parte decree against Sevag Ram. The petitioner-defendant No. 1 contested the suit as well as the application. He denied that Jaffarullah was his tenant and maintained that he was the sub-tenant or transferee of Sevag Ram and, therefore, he was liable to be ejected in pursuance of the decree obtained by the petitioner-defendant No. 1 against Sevag Ram, who was defendant No. 2 in this suit. After hearing the parties, the learned Addl. Munsif dismissed the application for temporary injunction by his order dated 12.10.82. Jaffarullah thereupon filed an appeal, which was heard by the learned Addl. Civil Judge No. 1, Jodhpur who accepted the appeal and granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 against the petitioner defendant No. 1 restraining him from ejecting the non-petitioner No. 1 from the suit premises in execution of the decree obtained by him against Sevag Ram non-petitioner No. 2.

(3.)I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.