B.S.Chauhan, J. - (1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Abu Road, Sirohi dated 21-11-2001 allowing the appeal of the respondents Railways against the order dated 17-9-2001 passed by the trial court granting interim relief under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code')
(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the revisionist filed a suit on 8-8-2001 for permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code praying that the respondents-defendants be restrained from dispossessing the revisionist from the land in dispute which it uses as a bus stand for picking up and getting down the passengers. The learned trial court, vide order dated 17-9-2001, passed the order that the respondents-defendants shall not dispossess the revisionist Corporation from the land in dispute which is being used as bus stand for picking up or getting down the passengers without due process of law. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the respodents-defendants preferred the appeal which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 21-11-2001. Hence, this revision petition.
(3.) Shri Sangeet Lodha, learned counsel apparing for the revisionist has raised large number of issues challenging the impugned order. However, he was confronted as to whether in a case like instant the Civil Suit is maintainable if the bus stand for picking up or getting down the passengers is to be made by the transport authorities under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1988') in absence of any pleading that the transport authorities had ever notified the bus stand on the premises in dispute;