JUDGMENT 1. - Having heard Shri A.K. Gupta learned counsel for the applicant I am not satisfied that the Courts below have committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the application for grant of temporary injunction under order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. The learned counsel urged that although the applicant has been found to be in possession of the disputed property but the non-applicants want to evict him from the property otherwise than in accordance with law. He urged that the simple prayer made through the application filed by him under order 39 rules 1 and 2 was that he be not evicted from the disputed property otherwise than in accordance with law. 2. Grant of injunction is discretionary relief and it will be required in every case from the trial Court that it takes into consideration the merits of the controversy arising before it and if the trial Court finds prima facie that the applicant has a case and otherwise other questions and balance of convenience also likely to be decided in his favour then an injunction can be granted. But in a case where these requirements are not established the Court is not bound to grant the injunction. In the present case the findings of the Court below are that the applicant does not have prima facie case. That to my mind is sufficient itself for the rejection of the application. 3. The revision is therefore rejected.Revision rejected. *******