Short Note : 1. By this revision, the applicant seeks interference with the order made by the trial Court rejecting his request for grant of temporary injunction against the defendant restraining him from executing the decree which he had already obtained against Nannoolal for his eviction from the suit premises. 2. The Court below have refused the request for grant of injunction by keeping in view the previous conduct and stand taken by this very applicant in the earlier suit. It would be significant that in the earlier suit, which was brought by the non-applicant-plaintiff against Nannoolal as a tenant, the present applicant was disclosed as sub-tenant in the occupation of the premises inducted by the original tenant Nannoolal. This very applicant in that suit came with a case that he was in joint occupation of the suit premises with Nannoolal, the tenant because he himself was also a member of the joint Hindu family and, therefore, there was no necessity of impleading him as a defendant in addition to Nannoolal the tenant. At that time, she did not come with the case that he was in occupation of the suit premises under any independent contract of tenancy in his favour from the plaintiff. Held: In the present case, when the non-applicants brought a fresh suit against Nannoolal alone and claimed eviction and obtained the decree for eviction against Nannoolal, the present applicant filed a suit for claiming permanent injunction by contending that he was in occupation of the suit premises in his own rights under an independent contract of lease, from the plaintiff. It is not the case that there was any subsequent contract of tenancy in favour of the present applicant with the landlord, so that earlier stand taken may be taken to be irrelevant, The orders made by the Courts below in the matter of grant of temporary injunction are discretionary orders. The scope of interference by invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court in such matters is little unless it could be shown that the orders have been made with material irregularity or that they suffer with any error of jurisdiction. No such defect is found in the present case. In view of the facts stated above, the Courts below were fully justified in rejecting the application. Revision dismissed.