Short Note : 1. In a Civil suit filed by the petitioner Suwalal against Ramakant, the Civil Judge Gohad passed an order under Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39 CPC restraining him from interfering with the possession of the petitioner Suwalal over the field in suit. The learned First Additional District Judge Bhind confirmed the temporary injunction granted in favour of the petitioner Suwalal but on condition that he shall furnish security for Rs. 5000/- to recompensate Ramakant in case he sustained loss as a result of the temporary injunction. 2. What is being challenged is yet another condition therein that the petitioner Suwalal shall furnish an account of each crop reared by him and shall also deposit in the Court the net income from the field. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, this condition is so onerous that it virtually amount to giving something with one hand and snatching it away with another. In support, he has relied on the decision in A. Batcha Saheb vs. Nariman K. Irani and Another, AIR 1955 Madras 491. As against this, submission of the learned counsel for the non-petitioner Ramakant is that having regard to the circumstances of this case, the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 3. It is not disputed nor can it be that the Court may grant a temporary injunction on such terms as the duration of the injunction keeping an account giving security or otherwise, as the Court thinks fit vide sub-rule (2) of rule 2 of Order 39 C.P. Code. The question however is whether the condition about the deposit of the net income was at all called for in the circumstances of this case. As the things appear, the deceased Mst. Kalawati was once the Bhumiswami of the land in suit. Presumably, she leased it out to the petitioner some time before the coming into force of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. Claiming to be a widow and, therefore, a person under disability, she sought ejectment of the petitioner from the suit land under sub-section (4) of section 168 of the said Land Revenue Code. She got the desired relief from the Additional Collector, Bhind. The appeal of the petitioner Suwalal against that other order was dismissed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior, on 31.3.1973. The submission of the petitioner Suwalal in the present suit is that the deceased Mst. She got the desired relief from the Additional Collector, Bhind. The appeal of the petitioner Suwalal against that other order was dismissed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior, on 31.3.1973. The submission of the petitioner Suwalal in the present suit is that the deceased Mst. Kalawati was not a widow at the relevant time and a such, it is he who is Bhumiswami of the land in suit by operation of law. The Courts below have indeed found a prima-facie case in his favour as also all other circumstances warranting relief by way of a temporary injunction to safeguard his possession over the land in suit. There was, therefore, hardly any necessity to subject the petitioner Suwalal to accountability for the income from the field in suit particularly when the order was there to furnish security for Rs. 5,000. There is nothing to suggest that this by itself was not enough to protect the interest, if any of the legal representative of the deceased Mst. Kalawati in the suit property. Moreover, no reason has been assigned for imposing the impugned condition over and above the order for security. In the circumstances, the impugned condition must be struck down as unduly onerous. It is, therefore, set-aside leaving the parties to bear their own costs as incurred. Revision allowed.