Jagat Narayan, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application by the defendant in a suit against an order of Munsif of Nawa refusing to order delivery of possession over on agricultural plot of land to him on an application purporting to be under Sec. 151 C. P. C. read with Sec. 144 C. P. C.
(2.) THE plaintiff respondent brought a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession over the above plot of land. A temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 2 was passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff. THE trial court finally dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the defendant was in possession on the date of the suit. THE plaintiff preferred an appeal against this decree and the appellate court held that the evidence on record was conflicting and it could not be ascertained with certainty as to which party was in actual possession of the land on the date of the suit. He according dismissed the suit. The defendant then filed an application to the trial court alleging that he was dispossessed as a result of the order of temporary injunction passed by it in favour of the plaintiff and praying that possession be restored to him. This application was dismissed. The present application has been filed against that order. In my opinion this application has no force. The possession was not delivered to the plaintiff under the order of the court. So possession cannot be delivered to the defendant under sec. 144 C. P. C. nor under sec. 151 C. P. C. Even if the defendant was dispossessed by the plaintiff under the cloak of injunction order S. 144 C. P. C is not attracted. The only remedy available to the applicant is to bring a suit for possession against the plaintiff. As sec. 144 is not applicable a suit to recover possession cannot be barred. I accordingly reject the application. In the circumstances of the case I direct that parties shall bear their own costs. .;