I. S. ISRANI, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 11. 1. 1983 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sikar in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 45/81 (41/79) confirming the order dated 27. 8. 79 passed by the learned Munsiff, Sikar in Civil Misc Petition No. 9/79 (2/79) by which ad-interim temporary injunction was granted against the petitioner.
(2.) SHRI M. M. Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the lower courts have exceded their jurisdiction and therefore, committed error in granting temporary injunction. His contention is that in the present proceedings no prayer for cancellation of the decree has been made and therefore, no injunction could have been issued in the proceedings. It is further contended that the non-petitioner plaintiff has not claimed any right of easement over the land which is owned by the petitioner. He further contends that the courts below have failed to consider the large number of documents filed by the petitioner. Lastly, he contends that the non-petitioner has come to the court with uncleaned hands as he himself has raised certain constructions and booked the original way that he had. He also contends that the learned first appellate court has wrongly relied the principles laid down in Madan Mohan vs. Rewati Prasad (1 ). Shri A. K. Bhandari, learned counsel for the non-petitioner on the other hand asserts that in para 7 of the plaint, the plaintiff-non-petitioner has clearly mentioned that he has right of easement over the way for approaching his house. He further contends that as is evident from the judgment of the trial court in para 7 and also from that of first appellate court that all documents filed by the defendant petitioner have been considered. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the judgments of both the courts below. From the report of the Commissioner it is evident that only way of approaching to the house of plaintiff-non-petitioner is the one on which the defendant petitioner wanted to raise certain constructions. Evidently both the lower courts have considered various documents and affidavits filed by both the parties and also gone through the report of the Commissioner and after discussing in details the rival contentions of both the parties, have come to the conclusion that all the three necessary conditions did exist in favour of the plaintiff-non-petitioner for grant of ad-interim temporary injunction in his favour. Reliance has been placed on the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. Ajit Prasad (2), in which it was held by the Apex Court that when the order of the lower court is within its jurisdiction, the High Court should not interfere even if the order is right or wrong or in accordance with law or not, unless it has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. AIR 1971 SC 2324 is also to the same effect. In my opinion the learned lower court has not exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity to call for any interference and the revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However the matter has become quite old and the trial court is directed to give priority to this case and proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possi-ble. Atleast one date or more should be fixed every month and efforts should be made to conclude the trial of the suit within a period of one year from the date of receipt of this order. Copies of this order be sent to both the courts below. .;