JUDGMENT 1. - The plaintiff-appellant has challenged the order dated 31.08.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the injunction application filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,59,600/- and also for injunction against the defendant-respondent. In the suit, the appellant had alleged that it is a partnership firm. The firm had taken House No.2088, situated at Maniharon Ka Rasta, Radio Market, Nehru Bazar, Jaipur on rent from one Shri Zahoor Mohd. The appellant was doing business in the name and style of M/s. Sound Centre. It was further alleged that the defendant-respondent approached the appellant and requested it to sell Audio-System and Video-System and its allied accessories on the basis of commission and an agreement was also executed on 03.06.1998. The said agreement was for three years. After completion of three years, another agreement was executed on 29.06.2001 on the same terms and conditions. It was further alleged that the plaintiff sold the goods of the defendant and his commission comes to Rs.7,76,000/- out of which only Rs.5,05,000/- has been paid. Thus, an amount of Rs.3,59,600/- is still outstanding against the defendant-respondent. The appellant further claimed that the said agreement was also for only three years and it came to an end on 29.06.2004. Thereafter, another agreement was executed but subsequently the licence was revoked by the appellant vide notice dated 01.09.2005. The appellant requested the defendant-respondent to pay the due commission amount and to take away the goods. However, while defendant-respondent was willing to take away the goods, he was not willing to pay the commission amount. Thus, the civil suit. Along with the civil suit, the appellant filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Code', for short) wherein he prayed that the defendant-respondent should be prevented from taking away the goods and from entering the rented premises and to prevent from interfering in peaceful possession of the appellant in the rented premises. 3. The defendant-respondent submitted his written statement and admitted the execution of the agreements. He further admitted that he was a licensee. 3. The defendant-respondent submitted his written statement and admitted the execution of the agreements. He further admitted that he was a licensee. He further alleged that initially, he was doing the business in the name and style of M/s. Vasuki Electronics Private Limited, but subsequently changed the name of business to M/s. Shreya Marketing. According to the respondent defendant, no commission amount is owed to the appellant. He further alleged that on 01.11.2003 the agreement had come to an end and rented premises was subsequently taken by him from the landlord and since then he has been in possession of the rented premises. He further claimed that the landlord and the appellant entered into a conspiracy to ensure that he is ousted from the rented premises. In order to carry out the said plan, on 16.05.2005, they broke the locks of the rented premises about which he had filed an FIR at Police Station Kotwali, formerly registered as FIR No.189/2005 for offence under Sections 453 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. After going through the documentary evidence and after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 31.08.2005, the learned Jude was dismissed the temporary injunction application. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 4. Mr. M.M. Ranjan, the learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that as long as the defendant respondent owes Rs.3,59,600/- to the appellant, he should not be permitted to take out his goods, which are still lying with the appellant. In case, the goods are permitted to be taken out, it would be difficult to recover the amount owed to the appellant. He further argued that according to the landlord, the premises were rented to the appellant and not to the defendant respondent. Therefore, the appellant is still in possession of the said premises. Hence, the learned Jude should have prevented the defendant from entering the said premises during the pendency of the dispute between them. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned order. 6. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the defendant-respondent had produced sufficient evidence to prove the fact that it is he who is in possession of the rented premises. Since prima facie he seems to be in possession of the rented premises, it is difficult for the court to restrain him from entering the premises. 6. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the defendant-respondent had produced sufficient evidence to prove the fact that it is he who is in possession of the rented premises. Since prima facie he seems to be in possession of the rented premises, it is difficult for the court to restrain him from entering the premises. Moreover, since the possession seems to be with the defendant-respondent, the appellant has not been able to make out a prima facie case in his favour for grant of temporary injunction. As far as the recovery of the amount is concerned, the same can be directed to be paid after going through the entire evidence produced during the course of the trial. Therefore, it would be too premature to restrain the defendant-respondent from disposing of the goods, which are in the rented premises. Moreover, the appellant had filed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code and not under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code. Thus, the learned court could not have passed any order for non-disposal of the goods lying in the rented premises. Hence, the impugned order is legally valid and just. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to disturb the said order. 7. In the result, there is no force in this appeal. It is, hereby, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******