HARI NATH TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition arises from the Judgment and Order dated 2. 7. 1996, passed by the II Additional Munsiff, Gulbarga, which has been confirmed by the Additional Civil Judge, Gulbarga, as appellate Court, by Judgment and Order dated 2. 8. 1996, whereby the Lower Appellate Court has dismissed the petitioner's appeal and affirmed the order of the Trial Court rejecting the petitioner's application I. A. I, for temporary injunction filed in O. S. No. 428/1995, whereby the petitioner had prayed for temporary injunction restraining the defendants respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property in dispute and with the business in the name of Nandini Milk Parlour being run at Central Bus-Stand, ksrtc, Gulbarga, till the disposal of the suit. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF claiming to be power of attorney holder of Nandini Milk Parlour at KSRTC Bus Stand, filed a suit for permanent injunction with the allegations to the effect that plaintiff is running nandini Milk Parlour at KSRTC Bus-stand, Gulbarga, since 18. 9. 1991, with the permission of Gulbarga Co-operative Milk Produqers federation Limited, Gulbarga, on terms and conditions and has been paying a monthly ground rent of Rs. 285/- per month with commission of Rs. 500/- per month to defendant No. 1. Plaintiff alleged that plaintiff had furnished the Bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and, as per agreement, she has constructed a Stall at Bus Stand, Gulbarga, by investing huge sum of money and he is selling milk and milk products from 5 a. m. to 11 p. m. Plaintiff - revision petitioner alleged that through out the lease, the ground rent and commission was paid upto 17. 9. 1994. Petitioner's case, as per plaint has been that the defendant No. 1 enhanced the ground rend and the plaintiff agreed and invested another sum of rs. 3,00,000/- to reach the Profit and alleged agreement was executed. Plaintiff's case is that plaintiff has invested heavy amount in the business and his business is the only source of his livelihood. The licence of the plaintiff has been renewed from 17. 9. 1994 to 17. 9. 1995. But surprisingly on 1. 9. 1995, defendant No,1, issued notice asking the plaintiff to remove her belongings from the premises and to vacate the premises within 7 days, which notice the revision petitioner alleged, to be illegal. The licence of the plaintiff has been renewed from 17. 9. 1994 to 17. 9. 1995. But surprisingly on 1. 9. 1995, defendant No,1, issued notice asking the plaintiff to remove her belongings from the premises and to vacate the premises within 7 days, which notice the revision petitioner alleged, to be illegal. Plaintiff further alleged that the defendant No. 1 may and is likely to take the law into hand to remove her, as he wants and intends to give the premises to somebody else on higher rent. The plaintiff alleged and claimed that it is necessary that the defendants be restrained from illegally dispossessing the plaintiff from the property in dispute. ( 3 ) ALONG with the plaint of the suit the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that pending decision of the cases, defendants be restrained from interfering with plaintiff's possession over the property in dispute as well as from interfering with the running of plaintiff's business of nandini Milk. ( 4 ) ON the notice being issued, defendants- respondents filed the objections alleging that the plaintiff had no statutory right to continue on the premises. They further alleged that plaintiff has been working in the premises of the Vendor of Co-operative Milk Federation. The defendants alleged that plaintiff has no prima facie case nor balance of convenience is in her favour and application for temporary injunction be dismissed. ( 5 ) THE Trial Court after having heard the parties, held and observed, admittedly, as per agreement she was permitted to sell the milk by opening Nandini Milk parlour. She was permitted by the k. M. F. to carry on the said business in the premises of defendants. She is neither the licencee nor the lessee of the defendants. Her agreement being made with K. M. F. If at all any infringement to her right arising out of the said contract is made out, the other party to the agreement can be restrained from proper relief and remedies, but in the present situation, plaintiff has no right to claim the order or decree sought against the defendants. The Court observed, when there is no jural relationship between the parties, there is no prima facie case made out by the plaintiff. The Court observed, when there is no jural relationship between the parties, there is no prima facie case made out by the plaintiff. The Court opined that, in order to seek injunction, plaintiff has to satisfy the Court that they have legal right and there is invasion of legal right. The Court further observes, merely because she continued in that business till to-day. it does not bring her a better right over the defendants for the period she has carried the business in that premises. The ground rent is collected by previous owner is not unlawful. The Court opined that payment of ground rent! and production of those receipts does not help the plaintiff to sustain her rights over the suit premises and, it observed that plaintiff has no right to sue the defendants and, so balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the plaintiff, ( 6 ) ON appeal being filed, the Appellate Court, that is learned Civil Judge observes that: " a close perusal of the documents filed by the plaintiff clearly reveals that she was only permitted to sell milk by opening the Milk Parlour in the premises of the 1st defendant. It is also clear from the, documents that, she is neither lecencee nor lessee of the 1st defendant. It further observed that documents reveal that, even the agreements entered into between the 1st and deft and KMF clearly reveal that the relationship between the 1st defendant and KMF is only licensor and licensee. Mere payment of ground rent and production of rent receipts for having paid rents, that does not help the plaintiff to establish her rights over the suit premises. The Lower Appellate Court observed that, in the instant case, plaintiff has no such legal right to remain in the suit premises after the lease period is over. So there is no infringement of her right by anybody and taking the above view the Court below dismissed the appeal on the ground that plaintiff has failed to prove existence of legal right to remain or to continue in possession of the property and, on this basis, it held that no balance of convenience can be said to be in favour of the plaintiff. ( 7 ) FEELING aggrieved from these orders, ie, the orders of the learned Courts below, the plaintiff has come up in revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 8 ) IT has been contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Court below, that is the Trial Court, by having taken into consideration the irrelevant matters and material with reference to the matter of temporary injunction, has illegally refused to grant the injunction and although it found that plaintiff - applicant has been in possession of the property in dispute and has been doing the business of running Milk Parlour on the property in dispute, illegally rejected the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff - revision petitioner and the learned Lower Appellate Court failed to apply its mind, as to whether Trial Court failed to apply its mind, as to whether Trial Court acted, according to law in the matter of grant of injunction by taking into consideration the relevant aspect and point. Learned Counsel contended that, there being apprehension of plaintiff's business being interfered with and his Parlour being thrown out, and the plaintiff could have been subjected to irreparable loss, on his business being illegally interfered with, as such the balance of convenience did lie in his favour. ( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel contended that it is the settled law as laid down by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court that, even a trespasser, who is in settled possession of the property or a person, who under a licence or permission had been in occupation of the property and is in settled possession, he is entitled to temporary injunction or injunction restraining even the owner of the property from taking possession by forceable unlawful means. Learned counsel contended that, no person entitled to take the law in his hand or to interfere with the settled possession of a person, as the plaintiff, by a process, otherwise than the process established by law. In this connection, the learned Counsel made reference to the decisions of this Court in the case of BASAVARAJ shivaramagouda vs MAHESH and an earlier decision of this court delivered by me in the case of SATHYAM @ RAMAIAH and others vs KARNATAKA MILK FEDERATION CO-OPERATIVE ltd. In this connection, the learned Counsel made reference to the decisions of this Court in the case of BASAVARAJ shivaramagouda vs MAHESH and an earlier decision of this court delivered by me in the case of SATHYAM @ RAMAIAH and others vs KARNATAKA MILK FEDERATION CO-OPERATIVE ltd. He also invited my attention to the decision of PURAN SINGH vs THE STATE OF PUNJAB and to the decision of the Supreme court in the case of KRISHNA RAM MAHALE (dead) vs SHOBHA venkat RAO. The learned Counsel submitted that when a person is in settled possession, evenafter, he had no right to remain in property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner, except by recourse to law. Learned Counsel contended, therefore the Court below taking the view that because though plaintiff is in possession, but he unable to establish his right to continue in possession after the expiry of the licence and after issuance of notice, for handing over possession, illegally held that plaintiff was not entitled to temporary injunction and that application for temporary injunction was not maintainable and misconceived and it illegally refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by rejecting the application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC. These contentions made on behalf of the petitioner - revision petitioner have hotly been contested by the learned Counsel for the respondents. Learned Counsel for the respondents contended, that present is a case of Revision Petition under Section 115 (c ). The jurisdiction of this Court is not, as wide of that of a First Appellate court and the jurisdiction is confined to jurisdictional error. He submitted that in rejecting the application for temporary injunction and the Appellate Court in dismissing the appeal, at the most can be said to have committed error of law, but it does not amount to jurisdictional error and, therefore even if the order is erroneous or finding is erroneous, this Court under Section 115 is not entitled to interfere, as jurisdiction of this Court is limited to jurisdictional error, so revision may be dismissed. ( 10 ) I have applied my mind to these contentions made by the learned Counsels for the parties. ( 10 ) I have applied my mind to these contentions made by the learned Counsels for the parties. There cannot be any dispute, as regards the bare proposition of law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure is confined to a case involving error which may be covered under either of the clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Section 115 (1), namely if the Court has usurped the jurisdiction not vested in it or the Court has illegally refused to exercise jurisdiction vested or, in cases it can be said that the Court has got illegal and with material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction, this Court may if the order impugned is allowed to stand, is likely to cause injustice or substantial injury to the revision petitioner, then this Court can interfere, otherwise if the order is shown not to be suffering from errors of jurisdiction or errors like the one indicated in sub-sections 1 (a), (b) or (c) and are not established, this Court cannot interfere. When I apply the basic principle of law, i find that the Courts below dealing with injunction application, approached and decided the case on the considerations and principles not warranted by law with reference to the subject and if court proceeds by taking irrelevant considerations, then it may be said that the Court has, by arriving at a finding and by passing the order on irrelevant considerations, i. e. considerations not warranted by law or consideration opposed to basic principles of law on the subject and to have acted illegally in exercise of jurisdiction vested. ( 11 ) REFERENCE in that connection can be made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJANTA TRANSPORTS (P) ltd vs M/s. T. V. K. TRANSPORTS PRIVATE LTD. . ( 11 ) REFERENCE in that connection can be made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJANTA TRANSPORTS (P) ltd vs M/s. T. V. K. TRANSPORTS PRIVATE LTD. . It is well settled principle of law, that in the matter of grant of temporary injunction the Court must be satisfied about prima facie case of possession, as to whether the party seeking temporary injunction is in possession of the property on the date of the suit; whether he is in settled possession of the property in dispute and whether if the injunction is not granted, it will have the result of causing serious inconvenience and irreparable injury to the plaintiff and will not amount to allowing a party to take law in his own hands. Further the purpose of granting temporary injunction is to direct the parties not to change the position in which they are, by taking the law in their own hands during the pendency of the proceedings in the suit and its final decision. ( 12 ) HERE in the present case, the Court below found that the plaintiff has been doing and continuously doing the business of Milk parlour on the premises in question. The Milk Parlour was constructed by her and the rent was also being paid. So when the plaintiff was found to be in actual and settled possession of the property in dispute; whether the plaintiff had a right to continue in possession or not and whether the defendant was entitled to throw out his goods, that was the question to be decided on merits in the suit. Once he the applicant has been found to be in possession and running the business occupying property in suit as allowed by the defendant, to allow defendant take the law in his own hands during the pendency of suit, definitely would have a tendency to cause irreparable injury. Once he the applicant has been found to be in possession and running the business occupying property in suit as allowed by the defendant, to allow defendant take the law in his own hands during the pendency of suit, definitely would have a tendency to cause irreparable injury. It is well settled principle of law, as laid down by this Court, as well as by Supreme Court, that where a person, even if he is a trespasser, but if he is a trespasser, and if he is in settled possession of the land or property, though he may not have a legal right to continue in possession, he is entitled to protect, resist and defend his possession, even against a rightful owner, who tries to dispossess him by adopting a process, otherwise than of law, as even in the suit, the person in possession can show his title or right to continue in possession, but till his right to possession is decided, the parties are not to be allowed to disturb the possession. ( 13 ) IN the case of Puran Singh vs The State of Punjab (supra), their lordships observed in paragraph-11, as under:". . . . . THIS Court clearly pointed out that where a trespasser was in settled possession of the land he is not entitled to be evicted except in due course of law and he is further entitled to resist or defend his possession even against the rightful owner who tries to dispossession him. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . There is no special charm or magic in the words 'settled possession', nor is it a ritualistic formula which can be continued in a strait-jacket but it has been used to mean such clear and effective possession of a person, even if he is a trespasser, who gets the right under the criminal law to defend his property against attack even by the true owner. "but what is necessary is that trespasser or a person in unlawful possession must be in actual physical possession of the property. "but what is necessary is that trespasser or a person in unlawful possession must be in actual physical possession of the property. Where a person or a trespasser is in settled possession he is entitled to protect his possession and if he is illegally dispossessed by the owner, is entitled to seek decree for possession under the Specific relief Act, as held by this Court, and is also entitled to seek for temporary injunction or the injunction or the injunction restraining the defendant from illegally dispossessing such person by taking law in his own hands. In the case of BASAVARAJ shivaramagouda vs MAHESH (supra), it has been laid at Page 429 that:"in view of these principles laid down in these decisions, it is clear that the plaintiff who is in possession of the property under colour of right even assuming he is in unlawful possession the defendant has no right to take the law into his own hands, and to dispossession him except in accordance with law, even assuming that defendant is the true owner of the suit property". Looking to these propositions of law laid down by this Court and the supreme Court, it appears that the Courts below acted illegally in rejecting the application for temporary injunction taking the view that though plaintiff is in possession and occupation, but he has no legal right to continue. 15. Whether he is entitled to continue in possession is a question to be decided in suit and whether the present plaintiff-Revision petitioner can be legally evicted by defendant is also question to be decided on process of law being adopted by defendant. Once plaintiff - applicant, i. e. Revision Petitioner is found to be in settled possession the plaintiff was entitled to the grant of temporary injunction to the effect that plaintiff shall not be evicted in any manner, otherwise than due process of law. Thus considered, in my opinion here is a case, where the Court below on irrelevant and illegal considerations, has illegally refused to exercise jurisdiction by rejecting the application and appellate Court also committed jurisdictional error, and illegally refused to interfere and refused to interfere with Trial Court's order, i. e. illegally refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. Thus considered the Civil Revision Petition is to be and is hereby allowed. Thus considered the Civil Revision Petition is to be and is hereby allowed. It is hereby ordered as under: the defendants are restrained pending the decision of the suit from illegally dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property and the defendants are prevented from taking possession of the suit property from the plaintiff, who has been found to be in lease possession in carrying on business, since 1991 on the suit premises. They are prevented from dispossessing plaintiff or interfering with his possession in any manner, otherwise than the process of law. As the suit is almost 4 years old, the Trial Court is expected to decide it expeditiously. --- *** --- .