Short Note : 1. On 2-7-1969, Jagannathgiri presented an application that while he was busy in worshipping Shri Hanumanji, Chhidasingh came to the temple and threw him out of the temple and threatened to kill him and forcibly took possession of the temple. Therefore, an application under section 145 Cr.P.C. was filed. 2. On receipt of the petition, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Morena, on 5-7-1969, issued a notice to Chhidasingh under section 145 (4) Cr.P.C. He submitted a reply on 13-8-1969, denying the allegations made against him and said that he is in possession of the temple for the last three years and the incident alleged to have happened on 2-7-1969 is concocted and false. Held : The first objection before the Additional Sessions Judge was that by the order, the learned Magistrate has said that Chhidasingh will not interfere with the possession of Jagannathgiri when in the application itself, Jagannathgiri has submitted that he was dispossessed by Chhidasingh. An injunction can be granted in favour of a person who is in possession, but if he himself is not in possession, then no injunction can be granted in his favour that he should not be dispossessed. This objection was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for allowing the revision and I think, it is a sound ground for the purpose. 3. There still remains a dispute as to who was in actual possession within two months before the filing of the application under section 145 Cr.P.C. One party has alleged that he was dispossessed on 2-7-1969, while the other party alleges that he is in possession for the last three years. The application was filed on 4-7-1969. Therefore, it will be necessary to decide the position prior to 4-7-1969 and to see who was actually in possession as required under the Proviso to section 145 (4) Cr.P.C. Reference accepted. Case remanded.