J. N. BHATT J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner herein is the original plaintiff who instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 1669/86 in the Court of Civil Judge (J. D.) Baroda against the present respondents who are defendants challenging the legality and validity of the notice of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation issued in September 1986 under Section 260 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 The parties are hereinafter referred to as arraigned in the Trial Court in the plaint. ( 2 ) BY virtue of the aforesaid notice of the Corporation the plaintiffs were called upon to the remove the wooden cabin constructed on the land bearing Survey No. 122/2. The plaintiff filed the suit challenging the action of the issuance of the said notice of the Corporation for perpetual injuction. Plaintiff inter alia contended that he is one of the co-owners of the manager of the suit property situated if the Sim Harni Road Vododara and he had constructed the wooden cabin in the said land. He also contended that in the previous litigation in respect of the very land it was held by this court also that putting up wooden cabin did not amount to creation of building and no prior permission for construction was required and therefore the impugned notice issued by the Corporation under Section 260 is illegal. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff applied for interlocutary injunction by giving an application Exh. 5 along with the suit which came to be rejected after hearing the parties. The defendants case is that the suit land is covered under the Town Planning Scheme No. 7 which has become final and plaintiff was allotted other final plots in liev of suit land bearing Survey No. 122 and therefore he has no right to continue in the suit land. The plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 788 of 1995 challenging the Town Planning Scheme and having failed to obtain interlocutary order in the said suit in his favour and with a view to retain the possession of the suit land the plaintiff has filed this suit to defend his illegal construction of the wooden cabin on the suit land. Therefore according to the case of the Corporation the notice came to be issued under Section 260 (1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 (BPMC Act ). Therefore according to the case of the Corporation the notice came to be issued under Section 260 (1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 (BPMC Act ). After hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances the Trial Court was pleased to reject the application Exh. 5 ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order of the Trial Court the original plaintiff carried the matter in appeal by filing Misc. Civil Appeal No. 110 of 1993 before the District Court at Baroda which also came to be dismissed. Thus the interlocutary injuction application submitted by the plaintiff at Exh. 5 before the Trial Court was rejected and it came to be confirmed by the District Court. Thus both Courts have concurrently held against the petitioner original-plaintiff on facts. Hence this revision under Section 115 of the Code. ( 5 ) AT the threshold it may be stated that the powers of this Court under Section 115 of the Code are very much circumscribed. The jurisdictional sweep in a revision under Section 115 is very much limited. It is a settled proposition of law that this Court cannot interfere with the impugned order of the Trial Court if the case does not fall within the purview of Sec. 115 providing a right to file a revision under the Code. If the finding made by the lower Court is neither manifestly perverse nor erroneous and not attracting the provision of Section 115 High Court should not substitute its finding for the one reached by the lower Court on a reappraisal of the evidence. ( 6 ) SECTION 115 empowers the High Court to satisfy itself on three matters as per the settled proposition of law: 1 That the order of the subordinate court is within its jurisdiction; 2 That the case is one in which the Court ought to have exercised jurisdiction; 3 That in exercising jurisdiction the Court has not acted illegally that is in breach of any provisions of law or with material irregularity that is by committing some error of procedure. When the finding of fact recorded by the courts below are supportable on the prima facie evidence on record in a case like one on hand the revisional Court must indeed be reluctant and embark upon the independent reassessment of the evidence and to sub-plant conclusion on its own. When the finding of fact recorded by the courts below are supportable on the prima facie evidence on record in a case like one on hand the revisional Court must indeed be reluctant and embark upon the independent reassessment of the evidence and to sub-plant conclusion on its own. ( 7 ) IT is also a settled proposition of law that discretionary orders passed by the Trial Court should not be interfered with unless it is successfully shown the impugned order is perverse and is contrary to the provisions of law. ( 8 ) THE learned. counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff has vehemently contended before this Court that plaintiff has a prima facie case as the wooden cabin constructed on his land is not a permanent construction requiring the permission of the Corporation under Section 253 or 254 of the BPMC Act. It is also contended that in view of the pendency of the suit filed by the plaintiff challenging the Town Planning Scheme the impugned order is bad in law. The reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court rendered in Baroda Municipal Corporation vs. Dahyabhai Gordhanbhai and others reported in 26 (1) G. L. R. 113 It is contended that the said decision was rendered by this Court between the same parties and in respect of the same wooden cabin. ( 9 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the present case and after having heard the learned. counsel for the parties this Court has no hesitation in finding that all the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner original plaintiff are unacceptable and without any merits. Section 253 of the BPMC Act provides notice to be given to the Commissioner of the Corporation of intention to erect building. Section 254 of the BPMC Act provides notice to be given to the Commissioner of intention to make additional construction or alteration in the building. Under Section 260 provision is made for the proceedings to be taken in respect of building or work commenced contrary to the rules or bye-laws. Thus the corporation is empowered to take proceedings against persons who have erected or constructed any building or execution of any such work as described in Section 254. Under Section 260 provision is made for the proceedings to be taken in respect of building or work commenced contrary to the rules or bye-laws. Thus the corporation is empowered to take proceedings against persons who have erected or constructed any building or execution of any such work as described in Section 254. If such construction is commenced or carried out contrary to the rules or bye-laws the Commissioner is entitled to take proceedings in respect of such building or work under Section 264. Under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 261 of the BPMC Act original defendant Corporation issued show cause notice to the petitioner original plaintiff for having constructed wooden cabin contrary to the rules and bye-laws. There is no dispute about the fact that the wooden cabin is constructed by the plaintiff without taking permission from the Corporation. ( 10 ) THE contention is that in the earlier litigation parties fought upto High Court and the present petitioner succeeded in that case in which it is held in his favour that no permission was required for the wooden cabin and the said case is reported in 26 (1) GLR Page 113. Without entering into other controversy whether the said decision lays down the correct proposition of law or not in this case the said decision is inapplicable as there is no prima facie evidence worth the candle on record to show that the impugned notice of the corporation under Section 260 (1) of the BPMC Act is in respect of the same wooden cabin which was the subject matter of the suit which culminated in the decision of this Court reported in 26 (1) GLR 113 Unless and until identity is established that this is the same wooden cabin which was the subject matter in the earlier litigation the said decision cannot be pressed into service. Had the identity been established the question would have been whether the construction of a wooden cabin is a construction or erection or alteration requiring permission of the corporation either under Section 253 or 254 of the BPMC Act. Thirdly the courts below have consistently and concurrently found on facts that plaintiff has no prima facie case cannot be ipse dixit interfered with on the ground of pendency of another suit challenging the Town Planning Scheme No. 7. Thirdly the courts below have consistently and concurrently found on facts that plaintiff has no prima facie case cannot be ipse dixit interfered with on the ground of pendency of another suit challenging the Town Planning Scheme No. 7. As such the plaintiff is already allotted another and he has transferred and disposed of the suit cabin to a third party which is manifested by the affidavit with documentary evidence produced in this revision. This contention is not controverted by filing counter-affidavit. The contention of the original defendant Municipal Corporation is supported by the documentary evidence which is not controverted. ( 11 ) IT is also very clear from the record that the Town Planning Scheme 19o. 7 has become final under the provisions of the Town Planning Act. This is an admitted fact that the sanction or permission prescribed under the Town Planning At is also not obtained for the use and development of the land after the scheme came into operation. ( 12 ) IT is also very clear from the record that the plaintiff has transferred the suit cabin to one Kishore Gandabhai on 28. 7. 1993 and has recovered an amount of Rs. 15 0 and has handed over possession of the land along with the cabin in question to the said person on rental basis and also for the purpose of erecting the cabin. The copy of the said writing is produced by the corporation which is not controverted. The said transferee Kishore Gandabhai has also not obtained any permission under the Town Planning Act though the scheme is complete. It is also very clear from the record that the petitioner original plaintiff has been given alternative plot on the formation of the Town Planning Scheme. The plaintiff is also served with a notice under Section 54 read with Rule 23 of the Town Planning Act and Rules requiring the petitioner to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the land in question. It is also specifically stated in the said notice that the petitioner has already allotted an alternative land in the same area against the original plots. It is also specifically stated in the said notice that the petitioner has already allotted an alternative land in the same area against the original plots. It is also very clear from the documentary evidence that the Town Planning Scheme No. 7 has come into effect from 3 ( 13 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner original plaintiff are totally meritless and this Court is satisfied with the rejection of an application for interlocutary injunction in respect of disputed land with a cabin thereon filed by the plaintiff in the Trial Court and the confirmation in the appeal by the District Court while dismissing the appeal is fully justified requiring no interference by this Court. On the contrary it is found that the plaintiff has not come with the clean hands disclosing true facts. A person who seeks equitable relief does not come with equity and with clean hands and suppressing material facts and that too at a show cause notice stage and thwarting legal proceedings for eviction since long and getting ad-interim orders in the Courts should be saddled with the exemplary cost. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the present case the present petition filed against two concurrent and consistent findings of facts recorded at the interlocutary stage by the courts below who has not come with the clean hands and who is guilty of suppression of material facts is meritless and is required to be rejected. In fact this is a gross case of misuse and abuse of process of Court. ( 14 ) IN the light of the special facts and circumstances and the discussion herein- before this petition is dismissed with costs. Rule is discharged. Interim relief shall stand vacated forthwith. Revision Dismissed. .