AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Chandrakanthraj Urs, J.-The petitioner is the plaintiff. When the suit was filed he had subsisting right to fish in Gunderi Tank in Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District. That lease came to be subsequently cancelled when the trial Court heard the application for vacating the temporary injunction. By then the defendants had secured the lease and the plaintiff''s lease for fishing rights had been cancelled by the Director of Fisheries. Despite that the trial Court on the assumption that on the date of the suit, the fishing rights were with the plaintiff, granted the injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed an appeal before the Civil Judge, Chitradurga, in Appeal No. M.A. 12/1988.
The Appellate Court taking notice of the cancellation has come to the conclusion that the Munsiff erred in law because he did not notice that the very foundation of the right to fish had disappeared by the time I.A. 2 came to be considered and therefore it was incorrect on his part to have granted the injunction.
If the plaintiff was aggrieved by the cancellation he ought to have challenged the cancellation in an appropriate Court or forum. Not having done that, he cannot maintain the cause of action much less enjoy the temporary injunction.
The revision petition is misconceived and it is rejected.