Despite printing the name of the learned counsel for the respective parties repeatedly, no one represented.
2. The long and short of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:
The plaintiff/revision petitioner herein filed the suit in O.S.No.1 of 2008 seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduled property. While so, he filed I.A.No.2 of 2008 seeking an ad interim injunction against the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduled property. After hearing both the sides, the lower court dismissed the application for interim injunction. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, C.M.A.No.2 of 2008 was filed before the learned Subordinate Judge, Udhagamandalam, which was also dismissed on merits confirming the order of the lower Court. Challenging the dismissal orders of both the Courts below, this revision petition has been filed on various grounds inter alia thus:
Both the Courts below erred in ascertaining the factual position as put forth and set forth, highlighted and spot lighted by the revision petitioner/plaintiff before the lower Court. Exs.P.1 to P4 and Ex.P9 marked during the trial in I.A.No.2 of 2008 would evince and indicate that he is in possession of the suit property. Both the Courts erroneously took into account the litigations between Mr.N.S.Sethuram and the defendant, which are not germane in this case for deciding the present case. There is no indication that the defendant is in possession of the suit property. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the orders of both the Courts below and for granting interim injunction.
3. Inasmuch there is no representation on either side, I proceeded to decide this revision on merits with the available materials.
4. A bare perusal of the orders of both the Courts below would exemplify and demonstrate that before the lower Court in I.A.No.2 of 2008 on the plaintiff's side as many as 11 documents were marked, viz., Exs.P1 to Ex.P.11 and after considering the pros and cons of the matter, the Courts rejected the prayer for interim injunction by giving a specific finding that absolutely there is no iota or shred, miniscule or molecule extent of evidence to prove the contention of the plaintiff that he is in possession of the suit property. In the grounds of revision, the revision petitioner relied on Exs.P1 to Ex.P4 and Ex.P9 as the documents, which are allegedly evidencing the possession of the suit property by the revision petitioner. It is therefore just and necessary to look into and peruse, consider and analyse those documents Exs.P1 to Ex.P4 and Ex.P9 viz., Daily Register (3 Nos) maintained by petitioner in respect of the petition property, Sales Tax Receipts (8 Nos)., Electricity Bills, Salary Vouchers, Series of 5 tax receipts. In respect of those documents, both the courts below correctly observed that the petitioner was admittedly a room boy in Hotel Ellora and in view of the same he had the opportunity of coming into possession of those documents.
5. The most pertinent point that arises for consideration is as to whether the plaintiff established the lease agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant and also the alleged payment of advance of Rs.1.5 lakhs by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant under the said lease agreement in addition to having allegedly paid a rent of Rs.10,000/- every month. I could see absolutely no evidence placed before the lower Court by the revision petitioner in that regard. When the suit itself is for injunction, then the prayer for interim injunction could be granted only if there is prima facie and ex facie evidence to prove the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.
6. My independent analysis of the documents referred to by the revision petitioner also in the grounds of revision would demonstrate that the revision petitioners has not proved his prima facie and ex facie possession over the suit property. It is a trite proposition of law that when both the courts below rendered their orders based on factual analysis, it is not open for the revisional court to interfere and that too in the absence of any clinching evidence. Here there is nothing to indicate that both the courts below failed to appreciate the documents placed before them.
7. Hence, I could see no merits in this revision. Accordingly, the revision fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, in the circumstances of the case, I would like to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
vj2 To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Udhagamandalam
2. The District Munsif, Udhagamandalam