Short Note : 1. This is a revision by the defendant applicant against the order dated 13-05-76 by the A.D J. affirming the order of issuance of interim injunction passed by the trial Court on 20-4-73. Held: It is not the law that no interim injunction restraining the defendant-applicant can be claimed and granted in a suit brought by the plaintiff for declaration of title and issuance of permanent injunction. Accordingly, the first contention raised by Shri Johri has no force. 2. As to the second contention, suffice it to say that omission of decision of the application submitted by the application 20-2-70, under Order 19, rule 2 CPC for permission to cross-examine the plaintiff on the affidavit filed by him (Plaintiff) is of no consequence in the facts and circumstances of the case. On the basis of the affidavit filed by Shri P.P. Johari, to the effect that this contention was raised before the learned A.D.J., I proceed on the assumption that this point was pressed by Shri Johri during the course of arguments before the A.D.J. but it does not improve the fact of the revision, I have been taken through application dated 20-2-70 submitted by the applicant for the purpose. In the application no grounds are stated on the basis of which a case for according permission to cross-examine the plaintiff can be regarded to have been made our. Accordingly, the trial Court, was right in rejecting the same and omission to decide this application by the learned A.D.J. has occasioned no prejudice to the applicant herein. Normally, it is expected of the judges hearing appeal to mention and to decide all contentions raised before them yet in the facts and circumstances of the present case, omission to decide the aforesaid application of the applicant is of no consequence. 3. This brings me to the last contention. The plaintiff has been held to be in possession of the suit land on the basis of Khasra entries on record. Both the Courts below have concurred in holding prima facie case and balance of convenience, to be of the plaintiff. Irreparable injury will result if judicial protection is not extended by issuance of interim injunction protecting the possession of the plaintiff-applicant against interference at the instance of the defendant-applicant. Both the Courts below have concurred in holding prima facie case and balance of convenience, to be of the plaintiff. Irreparable injury will result if judicial protection is not extended by issuance of interim injunction protecting the possession of the plaintiff-applicant against interference at the instance of the defendant-applicant. The defendant-applicant cannot be allowed to take the law in his own hands and dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. Dispossession by itself constitutes irreparable injury. Revision dismissed.