Dr. T.N. Singh, J. - (1.)PETITIONER 's counsel was very vocal. At the bar a large number of decisions have been cited, but the point involved is very simple. The root point is -can this Court in revision reappraise evidence and arrive at a finding different from that reached by the appellate Court ? The second question is, whether in a matter relating to grant of temporary injunction, this Court can interfere if discretion to grant injunction has been judicially exercised. These are the only two points which requires my consideration.
(2.)SO far as the first point is concerned, the law is decisively against the petitioner. Rulings need not be cited to re -establish the deeply entrenched principle that a finding of fact, however, erroneous cannot be challenged in revision. Similarly, this position is also accepted in law that this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction shall not interfere with the decision of Court below in the matter of granting discretionary remedy if the decision does not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity and if the discretion was judicially exercised.
Shri S.C. Jain, petitioners' counsel, while assailing the validity of the impugned order contended that the appellate Court decided the matter merely on the question of plaintiff's title to the suit land on plaintiffs' submitting sale -deed in respect thereof. Counsel submitted that the Court ought to have directed its attention to the question of possession. Therefore, counsel submits. I have to on look khasra entries. Why should I shift the evidence afresh? Yes, true, question of possession would be material if it was physical and actual possession. But that is not the case here. There is a categorical and definite finding of the appellate Court that the disputed portion of the land was vacant and none was in physical possession of that land. That being the position it is beyond my comprehensive as to how the question of possession should be crucial to the decision in this case.

(3.)THE plaintiff came with the case that he had title to the disputed land which was about 7,000 s.ft. out of an area of 30,000 s.ft. over which the defendant claimed his right. The appellate Court appointed a Commissioner at the instance of the parties who made local investigation at the site. It had to do because the defendant contended having erected some construction on the land claimed by him and that the construction was incomplete. After investigation at site the Commissioner submitted his report. There was no objection to the Commissioner's report by any of the parties. It was accepted. On the basis of the Commissioner's report the findings and conclusion have been reached not only by the impugned order but also an order passed in the same appeal on 14 -5 -83 to which my attention is drawn by Shri R. D. Jain, non -petitioner's counsel. This order is placed on record.