JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition against an order passed under Section 151, CPC by Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhilwara directing the plaintiff to hand over the possession of the shop in dispute to the defendant and not to disturb the possession of the defendant after handing over possession till the disposal of the suit. The plaintiff came to the Court complaining that the defendant who was his tenant for 18 years after having vacated the shop willingly after receiving Rs. 40,000/- on 24-1-96 tried to again take back possession forcibly, on 25-9-96. Apprehending further attempts of dispossession the plaintiff filed the suit on 25-9-96 itself and claimed an injunction against interference in possession and against dispossession. Along with the plaint an application for temporary injunction was also filed claiming a temporary injunction against the defendant restraining him from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the shop and from dispossessing the plaintiff from the shop till the disposal of the suit. 2. The defendant filed his written statement as well as reply to the temporary injunction application denying the allegation that he had peacefully and voluntarily surrendered possession to the plaintiff and had accepted Rs. 40,000/- in lieu thereof. In his special pleadings the defendant also set up a counterclaim pleading that he was a tenant in the shop for 18 years. On 25th Sept. 1996 at 9.00 PM he closed the shop and went home. During night between 25th Sept. and 26th Sept. 96 at the instance of the plaintiff members of his family broke the locks open and tried to take possession forcibly. The defendant lodged a FIR with the police on 26-9-96 at 11.30 AM. Thus, according to the defendant the suit for injunction was filed without being in possession during day time on 25-9-96 and possession of the shop was taken after that in the night. Fie, therefore, claimed a mandatory temporary injunction against the plaintiff directing him to put him back in the possession of the shop. 3. The trial Court rejected the application of the plaintiff and accepted that of the defendant and directed the plaintiff to open the locks of the shop vacate the shop within 15 days and hand over possession to the defendant. The plaintiff was further restrained from interfering with the possession so given to the defendant till the disposal of the suit. The trial Court rejected the application of the plaintiff and accepted that of the defendant and directed the plaintiff to open the locks of the shop vacate the shop within 15 days and hand over possession to the defendant. The plaintiff was further restrained from interfering with the possession so given to the defendant till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by this order the plaintiff hast filed this revision petition. 4. At the hearing of the case a doubt arose as to the maintainability of this revision petition because if the order is taken to have been passed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC then revision would not lie as it would be an appealable order, if it is taken to be an order passed under inherent powers under Section 15, CPC a revision would lie as the order would not be appealable. I need not go into that controversy because Sh. Gupta learned counsel for the non-petitioner has conceded that the order has been passed under Section 151, C. P.C. and therefore, a revision would lie. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has failed to consider important and relevant material on record In the shape of affidavits. According to the learned counsel affidavits of five persons were filed on behalf of the plaintiff in support of handing over possession to him. Affidavits of four persons were filed on behalf of the defendant also and the plaintiff had filed affidavits of these very persons stating that their affidavits were taken by the defendant giving them a wrong impression. According to the learned counsel this has vitiated the decision of the trial Court on the application and this Court would be entitled to interfere ' under Section 115, CPC on the ground of material irregularity committed by the trial Court. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that no mandatory injunction could be given in the circumstances to dispossess the plaintiff from the premises without deciding finally the question as to who was in possession on the date of the suit. A decision of this Court in Abdul Rajaque v. Narain Das, 1996 (3) WLC 507 was pressed into service for the proposition that disputed questions of fact could not be decided at the stage of interim injunction without recording evidence of the parties. 6. A decision of this Court in Abdul Rajaque v. Narain Das, 1996 (3) WLC 507 was pressed into service for the proposition that disputed questions of fact could not be decided at the stage of interim injunction without recording evidence of the parties. 6. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner defendant contended that there is no jurisdictional error or material irregularity committed by the trial Court. It was submitted that the trial Court had considered the entire material on record and had come to a prima facie conclusion that the defendant's version that the possession was snatched away after filing of the suit was correct and directed restoration of the possession to the defendant bringing back the status quo as it stood at the time the suit was filed. The learned counsellor the non-petitioner also contended that the trial Court's prima facie finding was based on sufficient material and it cannot be said shall the discretion has been used arbitrarily, He also pointed out that the defendant's versions supported by the fact that Court-fees stamp for the plaint were bought on 24-9-96 the date on which the defendant is alleged to have handed over possession to the plaintiff peaceful. According to the learned counsel this single fact goes to show that the suit was filed with a pre-conceived plan without being in possess and the possession was snatched after the suit was filed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. Some glaring circumstances come to notice on perusal of the record, they are (i) Purchase of Court-fees stamp on 24-9-96, (ii) no acknowledgment in writing of having handed over the possession or having accepted Rs. 40,000/- was obtain car from the defendant, (iii) there was no time doc between getting possession and alleged starting business without a Mohrat being performed and without publicizing the opening of the shop by the plaintiff, (iv) defendant's goods being found on the premises, and (v) broken locks found on the premises. Of course some of these facts are yet to be proved or explained by the parties by leading evidence but prima facie existence of these circumstances can be taken into account while deciding the applications for temporary injunction. 8. Of course some of these facts are yet to be proved or explained by the parties by leading evidence but prima facie existence of these circumstances can be taken into account while deciding the applications for temporary injunction. 8. As regards the affidavits being not considered by the trial Court, it is true that the affidavits have not been discussed in detail by the Court, but filing of the affidavits on behalf of the plaintiff has been referred to. There is no reference to the affidavits filed on behalf of the defendant, but that cannot be said to prejudice the plaintiff. A perusal of the record also shows that along with the application for temporary injunction the plaintiff did not file affidavits of his witnesses and only in paragraph 8 of the application stated that affidavits in support are filed without naming any of the deponents. The application for temporary injunction was filed on 25-9-96. The affidavits in reply were filed along with the reply by the defendant on 30th Sept. 1996 and the affidavits in support of the plaintiff's application were filed on 19-12-96, though these affidavits of Sunil Jain, Satya Narain, Laxman Lal, Kishan Lal and Mukesh were sworn in before the Oath Commissioner on 30-9-96. As regards the affidavits filed by the defendant in support of his stand, all the deponents retracted from their stand and gave affidavits in favour of the plaintiff to the effect that they had signed on plain blank papers. In these circumstances, if the trial Court has not given much importance to the affidavits filed by both the parties it cannot be said that it has committed a material irregularity. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances when the trial Court found on the basis of material placed before it that at the time when the plaint was filed the plaintiff was not in possession and he dispossessed the defendant after filing of the suit, if the trial Court passed an interim order restoring back possession to the defendant it cannot be said that it has committed jurisdictional error or material irregularity. 10. The Supreme Court in Manoharlal v. Heeralal, AIR 1962 SC 527 has held that inherent powers of the Court can be invoked in cases in which the Code of Civil Procedure does not provide any specific remedy. 10. The Supreme Court in Manoharlal v. Heeralal, AIR 1962 SC 527 has held that inherent powers of the Court can be invoked in cases in which the Code of Civil Procedure does not provide any specific remedy. They are to be exercised by the Court in very exceptional circumstances for which the Code lays down no procedure. In my opinion the situation where the Court prima facie finds that the plaintiff falsely claimed to be in possession when the suit was filed and dispossessed the defendant forcibly after filing the suit would warrant invoking of inherent powers by the Court to restore the position as it stood at the time of filing of the suit. In Rakesh Singhal v. V. ADJ Buland Shahar, AIR 1990 All 12 , construction put up during the proceedings after having obtained injunction by misleading the court was directed to be pulled down under inherent powers u/S. 151, CPC. In the present case if the Court had intervened and put back the defendant in possession under its inherent powers no fault can be found with the order. After all this would only be an interim order and if ultimately the plaintiff proves after leading evidence that he was in possession at the time of filing of the suit, possession having been handed over to him peacefully by the defendant the Court is empowered to restore the possession to him and pass appropriate consequential orders. 11. The revision petition has no force. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. It is clarified that observations regarding facts made in this order are all expressions on the basis of material available on record at this stage and the trial Court shall be free to decide the suit in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations on facts made in this order.Revision dismissed. *******