Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the plaintiff-revisionist.
(2.) The plaintiff-revisionist aggrieved by an order passed by the trial court dated 29th September 2005, whereby the trial court on an application 6 C2 filed by the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction has passed the order to the effect that in the facts and circumstances of the case, unless the other party is heard, no ex parte temporary injunction can be granted and directed to issue notices to the defendants fixing 6th October, 2005, as the next date for disposal of the application for grant of temporary injunction.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the plaintiff-revisionist submitted that in view of the decision of this Court in Guru Dutt v. Anju Khatri and Anr. 2004 (2) AWC 1141 (LB) : 2004 (1) CLR 698, the trial court ought to have granted temporary injunction to the plaintiff. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the revisionist has relied upon paragraph 8 of the aforesaid decision, which is reproduced below: 8. The aforesaid provision goes to show that Court is empowered to grant temporary injunction to restrain the dispossession of the plaintiff or otherwise protecting the plaintiff from any anticipated inquiry to the rights of the plaintiff. Prima facie the ex parte case of the plaintiff as stated in the application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, C.P.C. is such which gives an impression that the learned trial court must have jurisdiction under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, C.P.C. and the learned trial court was in position to give reason also for grant of ex parte injunction as provided under Order XXXIX, Rule 3, C.P.C. but it appears that the learned trial court has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested. Therefore, it is a fit case to interfere under Section 115, C.P.C. by this Court.;