R.S.Kejriwal, J. - (1.) This revision has been directed against the order dated 12.7.91, passed by Addl. Civil Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, in Civil Appeal No. 21/90, by which the said Court confirmed the order dated 9.7.90, passed by M.J.M. Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for T.I. was dismissed.
(2.) The brief relevant facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a suit for injunction against the non-petitioners. It was mentioned in para No. 2 of the plaint that the disputed land is in possession of the petitioners. There are three rooms of chapter posh and three rooms of Tin Posh and Bara etc. The petitioners are in possession of the said land and are owners of the same. But the N.P. No. 3, who had enmity with the petitioners wants to dispossess the petitioners from the said disputed land. Along with the plaint, the petitioners also submitted an application for temporary injunction praying that the non-petitioners be restrained from dispossessing the petitioners from the disputed land. This application was supported by the affidavit of petitioner Prabhu Narayan. Notice was issued of this application to the non-petitioners but they did not file any reply. The trial court vide its order dated 9.7.90, rejected the temporary injunction application on the ground that the petitioners did not file any application for appointment of Commissioner and further that they did not produce any documentary evidence to prove their title and possession over the disputed land. Against this order of the trial court, the petitioners filed miscellaneous appeal. During the appeal, the petitioners submitted documentary evidence to prove their title and possession over the disputed land. The Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioners did not produce ration card and bills of electricity and water charges and as such the affidavit of the petitioner can not be believed. In view of this, the said Court rejected the appeal vide its order dated 12.7.1990. This order has been challenged in this revision by the plaintiff petitioners. The case was listed for admission on 1.10.1991. After hearing counsel for the petitioners, this Court directed for issuing notice to the non-petitioners to show cause as to why the revision be not admitted and finally disposed of at the admission stage. This Court also summoned the record from the trial court. The non-petitioners have been served but none appeared before this Court.
(3.) Mr. Jindal, counsel for the petitioners argued that the possession of the petitioners has been proved from the affidavit filed by the petitioner, which has not been controverted by the non-petitioners. Under these circumstances, both the lower courts should have granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners. He further argued that in the lower appellate court, the petitioners submitted documents from which it is apparent that the Panchayat itself granted permission to the petitioners to raise constructions. It is further evident from the voters list which was produced before the appellate court that the petitioners have been residing on the disputed land. But the lower appellate court without considering these documents, rejected the appeal on the ground that the petitioners did not file ration card and bills of electricity and water charges. In this revision, also none appeared to context thee case inspite of service of notice. Even if the documentary evidence which was produced before the appellate court is taken on record, the application deserves to be accepted only on the basis of affidavit filed by the petitioner before the trial court which was not controverted by the non- petitioners inspite of notice of temporary injunction application. Under these circumstances, the lower appellate court has committed serious illegality and irregularity in exercising its jurisdiction against the petitioners and in case the orders passed by the lower courts are allowed to stand, they would cause irreparable injury to the petitioners.;