J.V.Gupta, C.J. - (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, dated June 15, 1989, whereby the order of the trial Court dated May 12, 1989, declining temporary injunction, under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, in favour of the plaintiff was maintained.
(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for the grant of the permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him forcibly. According to the plaintiff, he had taken possession of the property vide agreement of sale executed by Gopal Singh, dated November 7, 1987, in his favour. He had paid Rs. 20,000/- as earnest money and that the total sale consideration was Rs. 2,05,000/-. Along with the suit, he also filed an application under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 of the aforesaid Code, for the grant of the ad interim injunction. The said application was contested on behalf of the defendants. The trial Court found that the suit for the grant of the permanent injunction was not maintainable. The plaintiff could file a suit for specific performance, if any. Consequently, it declined the ad interim injunction. In appeal, the learned District Judge maintained the said order with the finding. "From the circumstances, the only conclusion one can possibly arrive at is that the appellant was not in possession and it were the respondents who were in possession by virtue of the sale in their favour".
(3.) At the time of the mortem hearing, no ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner was granted as no case was made out for the same. Thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order as to be interfered within revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, this revision petition, fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.;