' The State land in question was held by Nawab Din and others as tenant. Due to breach of conditions of tenancy, the land was resumed in the year 1951. The tenancy rights were put to be auctioned and the bid of respondents Nos.4 to 7 being the highest was accepted.
2. The petitioners who claim to be in cultivating possession of the land, filed a suit to challenge the auction. Alongwith the plaint they moved an application for grant of temporary injunction, which was refused by the learned trial Court and their appeal also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. Hence this revision.
3. I have heard the learned counsel. The petitioners' possession is not covered by any written order of the Collector. Even the tenancy of Nawab Din and others under whom they claimed to be sub- tenant had been cancelled and the land resumed. The petitioners, therefore, cannot be said to have prima facie case. The injunction was thus rightly declined. Even otherwise the grant or refusal of injunction, was within discretion of the learned Courts below. This Court would be loath to interfere, in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C., with orders falling legitimately within the discretion of the subordinate Courts.
4. The learned counsel, however, submits that the petitioners' cropsare standing in the land and they cannot be dispossessed without payment of compensation.
5. This is a matter to be looked into by the Collector but so far as the instant revision is concerend this argument does not Furnish a basis to grant the temporary injunction.
' There is no merit in this revision, dismissed in limine.