JUDGMENT 1. - The defendant-petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 26.5.1994 passed by Shri Gheesa Lal Choudhary, Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in civil appeals Nos. 55/94 and 62/94 whereby the order dated 15.3.1994 passed by the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur was affirmed. 2. The plaintiff-non-petitioner filed the present suit for grant of permanent injunction with the allegations that he is a tenant of the petitioner in respect of the suit garage which was taken on rent in the month of April, 1980 at a monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. The plaintiff-non-petitioner further alleged that in the year 1982, the petitioner raised the rent from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 500/- per month and provided the additional land lying in-front of the above rented garage. It was alleged that the petitioner wanted to dispossess him by force. He, therefore, prayed that the petitioner-defendant be restrained from doing so. The plaintiff-non-petitioner also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC making similar allegations and prayed for temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from dispossessing him. In reply, the defendant-petitioner stated that he let out an enclosure measuring 35 ft. x 50 ft. to one Shri Ramgopal in the year 1979 for the purpose of carrying on business in the name of M/s. Bharat Engineering Works on 1.4.1979. Later on, with mutual agreement, the rent was raised from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 500/-. The petitioner-defendant categorically denied that the plaintiff-Subhash Sharma was ever inducted as tenant in the suit premises or that the petitioner gave additional land to him. The petitioner alleged that it appears that Ramgopal sublet or assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the suit premises illegally because the petitioner-defendant never agreed for such transfer of interest. The defendant petitioner further alleged that Ramgopal did not pay rent from 1.8.1990. It was also alleged that the non-petitioner-plaintiff filed the above suit probably at the instance of Shri Ramgopal. The petitioner-defendant denied the allegations of forcible dispossession of the plaintiff. Thereafter a rejoinder was filed by the plaintiff in which it was stated that though initially the suit premises were let out to Shri Ramgopal in the year 1975, in the year 1979 the rent was raised to Rs. 250/- per month and a new rent note was got executed from Shri Ramgopal. Thereafter a rejoinder was filed by the plaintiff in which it was stated that though initially the suit premises were let out to Shri Ramgopal in the year 1975, in the year 1979 the rent was raised to Rs. 250/- per month and a new rent note was got executed from Shri Ramgopal. In the year 1981 Shri Ramgopal formed partnership firm in which one Dilip Kumar along with plaintiff-non-petitioner Subhash Sharma were taken as partners and a deed of partnership was executed on 11.6.1982. Shri Ramgopai, however, retired from the partnership on 30.5.1992. The plaintiff-non-petitioner continued the business of the firm and has, therefore, become a tenant of the defendant. It was also alleged that the petitioner-defendant recovered rent from the plaintiff upto April, 1992. Thereafter the rent was not paid. A new contention was also raised in the rejoinder that the plaintiff-non-petitioner was using the western gate as a way which opens on the Residency Road. He, therefore, also sought relief in respect of his right to use the western gate. After this rejoinder was filed, the defendant-petitioner also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC in which he alleged that the non-petitioner-plaintiff was threatening to make illegal construction. He, therefore, prayed that the non-petitioner-plaintiff be restrained from doing so. The petitioner also stated that the western gate is not meant for the plaintiff. He, therefore, prayed that the non-petitioner be directed not to use that gate. 3. The learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur, in his order dated 15.3.1994, held that the petitioner only let out premises consisting of 35 ft. x 50 ft. on rent to Shri Ramgopal and that it was not proved that the defend ant-petitioner gave any additional land to the plaintiff by raising the rent from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 500/- per month. The learned Munsif, however, held that the plaintiff-non-petitioner is entitled to the use of western gate also. Consequently the application for injunction filed by the plaintiff was partly allowed and the defendant was directed not to dispossess the plaintiff from the enclosure measuring 35 ft. x 50 ft. and to allow the plaintiff to use the above western gate. The defendant-petitioner felt aggrieved by the above order and he filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur. The appeal has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. x 50 ft. and to allow the plaintiff to use the above western gate. The defendant-petitioner felt aggrieved by the above order and he filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur. The appeal has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has frankly conceded that since the non-petitioner is in possession, the latter cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law. He has, therefore, not made any grievance against this part of the order of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. He has also not disputed the finding of the Courts below that the plaintiff-non-petitioner is not his tenant and that the land lying in-front-of the garage is not a subject matter of lease-or tenancy of Shri Ramgopal. 6. Learned counsel has, however, expressed his grievance against the order where under the non-petitioner-plaintiff has been given a right to use the western gate. In this context, learned counsel has very pointedly urged that the non-petitioner-plaintiff did not even allege in his plaint regarding his right to use the western gate. This plea was only raised when he filed the rejoinder. In other words, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the plaintiff-non-petitioner has not made any averment regarding this right either in the plaint or the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC_ He has placed reliance on K.P.M. Aboobucker v. K. Kunhamoo, AIR 1958 Mad. 287 . In this case the Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that an interim relief granted during pendency of a suit should be of greater scope than what could be granted in the suit itself, after the party has established his right in the suit to that relief. In another case of Allahabad High Court V.D. Tripathi v. Vijay Shanker Dwivedi, AIR 1976 All. 97 it was held that temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 2 CPC can be granted on the term of the prayer for permanent injunction in the suit and not on different terms. Learned counsel has also submitted that the non-petitioner-plaintiff has not sought amendment in the pleading in consonance with three averments made by him in the rejoinder. 7. 97 it was held that temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 2 CPC can be granted on the term of the prayer for permanent injunction in the suit and not on different terms. Learned counsel has also submitted that the non-petitioner-plaintiff has not sought amendment in the pleading in consonance with three averments made by him in the rejoinder. 7. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that there is a concurrent finding of fact regarding the right of the plaintiff-non-petitioner with regard to the western gate. The non-petitioner has been using this gate and it is demonstrated by the fact that he has given his address in which he has mentioned Residency Road and the western gate opens on the Residency Road. Learned counsel has submitted if this right is denied, the plaintiff-in-petitioner will be put in great inconvenience and his business may be very adversely affected because the customers come through the western gate. He has submitted that there are two gates for reaching the disputed garage. The first gate is on the eastern side and the second gate on the western side. Learned counsel has also submitted that the grievance with regard to the obstruction created by the petitioner as regards the western gate arose after filing of the suit. Hence no averment with regard to this relief could be made in the plaint. 8. I have considered the rival contentions. I have gone through the plaint filed by the non-petitioner-plaintiff. In the plaint the non-petitioner-plaintiff has not sought any relief with regard to the user of the western gate. Even if it is assumed that the above cause of action accrued to the plaintiff-non-petitioner after the institution of the suit, he was obliged to seek an amendment in the pleading incorporating the above averment and seeking appropriate relief in respect of the western gate. Normally, the Courts allow amendments relating to subsequent events. Admittedly the plaintiff has not sought any such amendment in the pleading. Hence the plaintiff has not prayed for such relief in the original plaint. It is, therefore, not in dispute that the plaintiff-non-petitioner only raised this grievance through the rejoinder filed by him after the reply filed by the petitioner. The law on the point is well settled. Reliefs, in case the suit of the plaintiff is decreed, can only be granted relief which are prayed in the plaint. It is, therefore, not in dispute that the plaintiff-non-petitioner only raised this grievance through the rejoinder filed by him after the reply filed by the petitioner. The law on the point is well settled. Reliefs, in case the suit of the plaintiff is decreed, can only be granted relief which are prayed in the plaint. An interim relief is granted to a person on the assumption that such person is prima facie entitled to the right on which is based the claim for main relief as well as the interim relief. In other words, the plaintiff has not sought any relief in the suit, the same cannot be allowed in an interim , application. I, therefore, subscribe to the view of the Madras High Court expressed in K.P.M. Aboobucker's case that an interim relief granted during the pendency of the suit should not be of greater scope than what could be granted in the suit itself, after the party has established his right in the suit to that relief. The reason is simple and logical one. If the plaintiff has not made any claim in the suit, the Court is not obliged to make investigation in respect of such claim. No issue is also raised between the parties because issues are based on the pleadings of the parties. Such a claim will not be a subject matter of the suit if the investigation with regard to such claim is excluded in the suit for the averments having not made in the pleading, the relief based on such claim cannot be granted in an interim application. This is exactly what has been done by the Courts below. The plaintiff-non-petitioner has not made any averment with regard to his right to user of the western gate. No such averment has been in the plaint or the application. The non-petitioner did not seek any amendment even if it is assumed that the cause of action occurred to him after the institution of the suit. 9. There is one more reason for upholding the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As I have stated above that there are two gates through which one can enter into the suit premises. The other gate is on the eastern side. Learned counsel has submitted that it is 40 ft. wide and opens on the main road. 9. There is one more reason for upholding the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As I have stated above that there are two gates through which one can enter into the suit premises. The other gate is on the eastern side. Learned counsel has submitted that it is 40 ft. wide and opens on the main road. The customers of the non-petitioner-plaintiff can very conveniently use this gate for approaching the garage of the non-petitioner-plaintiff. If the non-petitioner-plaintiff has furnished address with reference to the Residency Road, he can change the same and it will not cause any inconvenience to the non-petitioner-plaintiff. 10. For the above reasons, I allow the revision petition in part. The order of the Courts below with regard to the user of the western gate by the plaintiff-non-petitioner is-hereby set aside. No orders as to cost.Revision allowed. *******