Short Note : 1. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for injunction seeking a direction that the non-petitioners may not interfere with the possession of the petitioner. The trial Court granted an exparte injunction on the basis of affidavits filed by the plaintiff-petitioner, and issued a notice to show cause why that order should not be confirmed. After the other side appeared and produced documents the learned trial Court passed the order setting aside the temporary injunction granted by it ex parte. On appeal this order has been maintained. Hence the present revision petition. Held : The order-sheet dated 18-3-76 indicates that a prayer was made by the petitioner under Order 19, rules 1 & 2 CPC that the affidavits which have been filed by the non-petitioner-defendants could not be relied upon and permission was sought for cross-examination of some of them on the basis of their earlier statements made in a criminal case. The learned trial Judge it appears rejected this prayer also for no reason. Thereafter the order-sheet discloses that the learned Judge beard arguments of the parties and fixed the case for orders on 23-3-76. In this order-sheet dated 18-3-76 it is ordered that as two certified copies of the same document, i.e. Khasra, have been produced by two parties and both the copies show different position, the original Khasra of the relevant years be summoned from the Tahsildar and the case was listed for orders on 23-3-76. It appears from this order-sheet that the learned Judge felt that having heard the arguments and before writing the order he would see the original and therefore he probably summoned the original Khasra. 2. The order-sheet dated 22-3-76 discloses that the Tahsildar was summoned to appear and he appeared with the original record and his statement was recorded and the case was kept for 23-3-76 as already fixed. This order-sheet dated 22-3-76 does not indicate that the parties had any notice of this date or were intimated about the statement of the Tahsildar being recorded. Although this order-sheet discloses that the Tahsildar had appeared on summons having been issued, in the record of the case no such summons is available. Both the learned counsel also verified from the record and admitted that no summons for the presence of the Tahsildar appears in the record placed before this Court. Although this order-sheet discloses that the Tahsildar had appeared on summons having been issued, in the record of the case no such summons is available. Both the learned counsel also verified from the record and admitted that no summons for the presence of the Tahsildar appears in the record placed before this Court. In the statement of the Tahsildar which is recorded, the date on which the learned Judge appears to have signed the statement is mentioned as "23rd March" whereas the date on which the Tahsildar has signed the statement appears to be "22nd March" and on the title of the statement the date on which the statement is recorded is mentioned; it appears that initially "22nd" was written which was ultimately by overwriting changed to "23rd". The manner in which the Tahsildar was called and his statement recorded is rather strange. It is not expected of a civil Court to examine any witness behind the back of the parties and get a statement which may either be favourable to one or the other. Apart from it, the statement that is recorded clearly goes to show that the Tahsildar admitted that he has issued a false certified copy for the advantage of a party and on the face of such statement the matter could not have been left at that. But as the statement was recorded in absence of parties it appears that the learned Judge was satisfied with that statement and proceeded to dispose of the case on the basis of such recorded statement. The absence of summons in the record is also mysterious. Either the summons was issued-which is not there or somehow the Tahsildar with the original was brought in the Court to give a particular statement which he gave. Either-way, the manner in which the case has proceeded in the trial Court does not deserve to be maintained. Apart from it, it is undesirable that the civil Court should act in this manner. 3. The revision is allowed and it is directed that the learned trial Court shall examine the Tahsildar in presence of both the parties and consider all the documents and if necessary grant permission to the parties to cross-examine those who have sworn affidavits in support of either party. 3. The revision is allowed and it is directed that the learned trial Court shall examine the Tahsildar in presence of both the parties and consider all the documents and if necessary grant permission to the parties to cross-examine those who have sworn affidavits in support of either party. And after considering all the material validly brought before it the trial Court shall pass an order for grant of injunction in favour of any party if the materials justified it.