V. B. RAJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a civil revision application. The applicant filed Suit No. 50/58 before the Mamlatdar of Baroda under section 5 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act for a permanent injunction restraining the opponents from causing obstructions to the possession of the suit lands. Pending the suit an interim injunction was granted on 8-12-58 and an application for vacating the interim injunction was also dismissed. The learned Mamlatdar also ordered that the contention of the opponents that they were tenants of the suit lands should be decided by the tenancy Court and that the suit under the Mamlatdars Courts Act should be kept pending till the decision by the tenancy Court. The opponents went in revision to the Prant Officer Baroda under section 23 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act. The learned Prant Officer came to the conclusion that the possession was with the original defendants to the suit. He therefore set aside the order of the Mamlatdar granting an interim injunction. Although in the order he has stated that the injunction both interim and permanent are vacated in fact the learned Mamlatdar had ordered only an interim injunction to issue. ( 2 ) IN revision it is contended that the learned Prant Officer was wrong in appreciating the evidence afresh in revision before him under section 23 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act and that the learned Prant Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain a revision under section 23 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act when only an interim injunction had been passed and when no final order had been passed. ( 3 ) IN support of the first contention reliance is placed on Kashiram v. Rajaram 13 Bom. L. R. 879. With respect I agree with the observations in this case that in revision under the Mamlatdars Courts Act the revising authority has no power to weigh the evidence which was before the Mamlatdar and come to a different conclusion of fact with reference to the plaintiffs possession. ( 4 ) BUT it is contended by the learned counsel for the opponents that the learned Mamlatdar who was trying the suit under the Mamlatdars Courts Act had no authority to issue an interim injunction because the proceedings under the Mamlatdars Courts Act are merely proceedings of a special type to which the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable. It is therefore contended that the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 C. P. Code relating to interim injunction are not applicable to proceedings under sec. 5 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act and he relies on Ganpatram Jebhai v. Ranchhod Haribhai I. L. R. 17 Bom. 645 and Kasam Saheb v. Marutibin I. L. R. 13 Bombay 552 In I. L. R. 13 Bom. 552 which was followed in I. L. R. 17 Bom. 645 it was held that Bombay Act III of 1876 provided a special procedure for Mamlatdars Courts and there is no indication in that Act of any intention that the rules of the Code of Civil Procedure should apply to cases for which the special procedure makes no provision. The Mamlatdars Courts Act with which we are dealing in the instant case is Act No. 11 of 1906 and in this Act also there is no indication of any intention that the rules of the Code of Civil Procedure should apply to cases for which the special procedure makes no provision. Section 5 (2) of the Mamlatdars Courts Act makes a provision for a permanent injunction and there is no provision in this Act for an interim injunction. 1 therefore agree with the contention that the Mamlatdar cannot grant an interim injunction in a suit under sec. 5 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act. The learned counsel for the applicant relies on Maruti v. Bankatlal 35 Bom. Law Reporter 576 which does not apply to the facts of the present case because that case does not relate to an interim injunction under section 5 of the Mamlatdars Courts Act ( 5 ) IT is also contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the suit a contention was raised by the defendants that they were tenants and in fact the learned Mamlatdar referred the question of tenancy to the Tenancy Mamlatdar under section 85 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 and that as the question of tenancy was pending in the Tenancy Mamlatdars Court the learned Prant Officer had no jurisdiction to decide any points in the suit. Reliance is placed on Maruti Dagadu v. Keshav Vyankatesh 56 Bombay Law Reporter 1010 section 85 (1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act reads as under :- ( 6 ) NO Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar or Tribunal a Manager Collector or the Bombay Revenue Tribunal in appeal or revision or the State Government in exercise of their powers of control. ( 7 ) EXPLANATION to section 85 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act also provides as under :-FOR the purpose of this section a Civil Court shall include a Mamlatdars Court constituted under the Mamlatdars Courts Act; 1906. ( 8 ) THE questions referred to in sec. 85 (1) are those enumerated in sec. 70 of the Tenancy Act. One of the questions referred to in sec. 70 is to decide whether a person is a tenant. But none of the items in section 70 refers to the question