The petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction. Along with the suit, he also filed I.A.No.969 of 2011 under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC seeking interim injunction. The trial Court having observed that the respondent has purchased the property by way of registered document and even according to the plaintiff, the respondent trespassed into the schedule property long back and he is in possession of the property and that the petitioner having got right and title over a part of the schedule property is trying to intermeddle with the entire extent of property covered by the schedule property, a part of which belongs to the respondent and therefore, he is not entitled for equitable relief of injunction, dismissed the application. Hence, the petitioner-plaintiff carried the matter in appeal and the lower appellate Court having observed that the respondent is in possession of the subject property and the petitioner-plaintiff is nothing to do with the subject property, confirmed the order of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.
