Petitioner Nedara Gram Panchayat, who is the original defendant, by filing this revision application under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has challenged legality and validity of the order dated 26.9.1994, passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Mehsana in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 50 of 1994, whereby the learned Judge set aside the order dated 21.2.1994, passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Siddhpur, below application Ex.5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 5 of 1993, and allowed the said application and confirmed the ad-interim injunction earlier granted.
2.The dispute centred round with regard to the possession of Plots No. 9, 10 and 11 which is alleged to be with the plaintiff who is the respondent in the CRA. The learned lower appellate Judge has come to the conclusion that from the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff, he has prima facie proved his possession over the disputed plots as he was paying the tax to the Panchayat. It is well settled law that where the persons is in possession of the property, even on the assumption that he has no right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner except by due process of law (See: AIR 1989 SC 2097). The learned Judge has also considered the report of the Commissioner which shows that the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed plots no. 9, 10 and 11. These are the findings arrived at by the learned lower appellate Judge after taking into consideration, the provisions of Order 39 of C.P.Code, and thereafter granted the ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
3.The learned Advocate for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or material irregularity or any jurisdictional error committed by the learned Judge while passing the impugned order. This being a revision under S.115 of C.P.Code, the scope of which is very limited, no interference by this court is called for with the discretion exercised by the lower appellate court, in favour of the plaintiff.
4.For the foregoing reasins, this revision application fails and is therefore, rejected. Notice discharged.
Dt.26.9.1996.( M. H. Kadri, J. )