JUDGMENT The respondent No. 2 - plaintiff filed· a suit against the petitioner seeking certain reliefs. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff made an application seeking injunction against the present petitioner that he be restrained from interfering with his possession. The trial Court granted the injunction in his favour; thereafter the appeal filed by the petitioner was again dismissed. Learned counsel for petitioner is not sure and certain as to whether the appellate order was challenged by the petitioner or not and if was challenged what was the outcome of said proceedings. The respondent-plaintiff moved an application under section 151 CPC inter alia pleading that on face of the injunction order, the petitioner was not entitled to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff, but contrary to the injunction order, not only the petitioner interfered with the possession, but dispossessed the plaintiff-respondent No. 2 The application was suitably replied by the petitioner. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court finding breach of the injunction order, directed that possession be restored to the plaintiff. Against the said order, as the revision proved futile, therefore the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the findings recorded by the two Courts below are contrary to records and in any case, the Courts below were not justified in directing restoration of possession in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that as the plaintiff was dispossessed during pendency of the suit in breach of the injunction order, the Courts were justified in directing restoration of the status as it obtained on the date of the injunction order. After hearing the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the Courts below were not unjustified in directing restoration of possession of the property in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, in view of the findings recorded by the said Courts. It is trite law that if on face of injunction, somebody dispossesses a person protected under the injunction order, then the Courts have jurisdiction to direct restoration of possession. In the opinion of this Court, in view of the findings recorded by the two Courts and the earlier injunction order granted by the Court, the Courts below were justified in directing restoration of possession. I find no reason to interfere. The petition is dismissed.