undertaken by the defendants in the suit property. The Trial Court, alluding to the order passed by the Deputy Collector, observed that the defendants were wanting to carry out the repairs and renovation of the existing house on the same plinth area and, therefore, was of the view that the record depicts the existence of the suit structure in the suit property and property under Survey No.192/24 and that the repairs and renovation of the said structure, which is originally existing as mud house, has been undertaken by the defendants, in respect of which the Deputy Collector has dropped the proceedings. The Lower Appellate Court was of the view that since the material relating to the aforesaid two proceedings was not placed on record by the plaintiff, there was a suppression of material facts on the part of the plaintiff and, therefore, the Trial Court ought not to have exercised the discretion in favour of the plaintiff. The Lower Appellate Court has also referred to the proceedings initiated by the defendant no.1 under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. in which proceedings, the fact that the defendant no.1 was in possession of the two other structures has been observed. The Lower Appellate Court, considering the aforesaid material, came to a conclusion that the Trial Court has failed to consider the material which was on record in its proper perspective and has thereby erred in allowing the application for temporary
