- (1.) THIS is plaintiffs revision against the appellate order dismissing his appeal against the trial Court's order refusing to issue a temporary in junction during pendency of the suit Plaintiff in stituted the suit with the following relief: "The defendants be permanently in Juncted not to interfere with the said tube-well (any machinery remaining, ought to be set up or with the electric connection etc. etc.") themselves or through other's direction or indirectly or under any appearances or claims or orders."
(2.) DURING the pendency of the suit an ap plication was moved by the plaintiff for the grant of an interim injunction in the following terms B "It Is therefore respectfully prayed that the defendants be restrained not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and further, not to prevent the plaintiffs in operating the tube well in suit." The trial Court dismissed the application on the finding that there was no machi nery in existence and hence the ques tion of operating the tube well did not arise. Another ground given for reject ing the, application was that the plain tiff was co-sharer of the defendant. Against this order plaintiff went up in appeal and the appeal was dismissed on the ground that there was no prima facie case made out by the plaintiff inasmuch as the suit was instituted in a court which had no jurisdiction to try it. The appellate Court applying Section 16, C.P.C. held that the suit could be in stituted only in a court in district Meerut where the tube well was situate and could not be instituted at Buland-shahr.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appli cants challenges the correctness of the view taken by the appellate Court on the ground that Section 16 (d) was not applicable to the suit and in the alter native that the proviso to the section was applicable and the suit was main tainable at Bulandshahr. The reason given in the plaint for instituting the suit at Bulandshahr was the residence of the defendants within the jurisdiction of the Bulandshahr court, Hence the question to be determined in this revi sion is about the prima facie finding given by the appellate Court about the non-maintainability of the suit at Bulandshahr.;