Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) It appears that the plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction, wherein an application for grant of ex-party mandatory injunction was also moved to restore the possession of the plaintiffs-petitioners over the shop concerned. Both the courts below have found that the plaintiffs were put in possession for a period of one year in the year 2005, pursuant to a rent agreement, term of which had already expired. It has also been found that the shop remained closed w.e.f. 1.10.2008 and the suit has been filed on 18.11.2009. Both the courts below have found that necessary ingredients to justify issuance of a direction of mandatory injunction is not available, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(2.) Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1990 S.C. 867 Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and others.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendants had unauthorisedly evicted the plaintiffs from possession, and, therefore, an application for restoration of possession was liable to have been allowed.;