SOBHAGMAL JAIN, J.- Dinesh Chandra, respondent here-in, claiming himself to be a tenant of the defendant Vijay Singh, appellant here-in, filed a suit in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, (South), Udaipur, for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, from interfering with the plaintiff in the shop situate in 16 Bhamashah Marg. The defendants have described it as a garage. On August 3, 1988, the plaintiff also filed an application for temporary injunction. By the order dated August 4, 1988, the Munsif appointed a Commissioner to inspect the site and also directed status quo to be maintained. The defendant filed a reply to the application for interim injunction. After hearing both the parties and taking into account the affidavits and the report of the Commissioner, the Munsif, by the order dated Dec. 8, 1988, granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in the suit shop. Against this, the defendant took the matter in appeal before the District Judge, Udaipur, who by the order dated April 21, 1989, dismissed the same. Aggrieved, the defendant has filed the present revision in this Court. 2. After hearing Shri M.C. Bhandari, counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.N. Mathur, counsel for the respondent, I do not find sufficient grounds to interfere in revision with the order passed by the learned Courts below. Aggrieved, the defendant has filed the present revision in this Court. 2. After hearing Shri M.C. Bhandari, counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.N. Mathur, counsel for the respondent, I do not find sufficient grounds to interfere in revision with the order passed by the learned Courts below. The learned District Judge has in terms, recorded the findings : esjh jk; esa ;g ekus tkus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ughsa gS fd oknh jsLihMasV us fookfnr nqdku ij flrEcj 1988 esa cyiwoZd uktk;t dCtk fd;k gks cfYd bl LVst ij izFken`"V;k rkSj ij ;g Li"V :i ls tkfgj gksrk gS fd oknh jsLihMsaV nqdku ij izfroknh vihykaV dk fdjk;snkj gksdj ml ij dkfct gS vkSj bl dkj.k bl rF; dk vafre :i ls fujkdj.k djus gsrq vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k vUoh{k.k ds mijkar fu.kZ; djus ds fy, ,d xaHkhj elyk ekStwn gS fd ftlds fu.kZ; djus rd oknh jsLiksMsaV ds i{k esa izFken`"V;k ekeys ds vk/kkj ij fookfnr nqdku dk dCtk ;Fkkor cuk;s j[kus gsrq Bksl vk/kkj miyC/k gS D;ksafd oknh jsLiksMsaV dh vksj ls Lo;a ds vykok izfroknh vihykaV ds gh nks vU; fdjk;snkj o lkeus ds nqdkunkj ds kiFk i= rFkk O;kikj eaMy] VsfyQksu foHkkx] o cSad [kkrs dh udy vkfn ,sls nLrkost izLrqr fd, x;s gSa fd ftUgsa bl LVst ij laiw.kZ :i ls rks udkjk tk ldrk gS u mUgsa >wBk gh ekuk tk ldrk gS D;ksafd bl lds [k.Mu esa izfroknh vihykaV dh vkSj ls fdlh rjg dk Lo;a ds vykok dksbZ kiFk i= ;k nLrkosth lcwr izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS esjh jk; esa oknh jsLiksMsaV dh vkSj bl LVst ij izLrqr fd;s x;s QksVks o fjiksVZ dfeuj dks Hkh U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk fd ftuds vk/kkj ij Hkh fookfnr nqdku dk oknh jsLiksMsaV dk dCtk o"kZ 1984 ls gksuk izdV gksrk gS fd vkSj bl izdkj izfroknh vihykaV dh vkSj ls izLrqr fd;k x;k dksbZ Hkh rdZ o n`"Vkar ekStwnk izdj.k esa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, lgk;d ugha gS vkSj esjh jk; esa Hkh oknh jsLiksMsaV ds i{k esaa izFke n`"V;k ekeyk bl LVst ij Li"V :i ls ekStwn gS mn;iqj }kjk dk;Zokgh n-iz-la- dh /kkjk 107 o 145 ds izko/kku ds vuqlkj dh xbZ gS muls Hkh jsLiksMsaV ds i{k esa dksbZ foijhr izHkko iM+uk ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA 3. Counsel for the petitioner, was unable to satisfy me that the orders of the learned Courts below suffer from any error of jurisdiction. Counsel for the petitioner, was unable to satisfy me that the orders of the learned Courts below suffer from any error of jurisdiction. I do not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the learned Munsif in the exercise of jurisdiction. 4. In the result, there is no force in the present revision and the same is hereby dismissed.