Manoharan v. Payoe And Others – sllr 2007 volume 2 page 270

In the case between the plaintiff-respondent (who sought a declaration of title, ejectment, and an injunction regarding land use) and the defendant-petitioner (operating a metal crushing business on the disputed land), the central legal questions concerned the sufficiency of a prima facie case for sustaining an interim injunction and the circumstances justifying exercise of revisionary jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Code. It was determined that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case once evidence showed the State had acquired the land; thus, the legal threshold for interim relief was not met. Established authority on the exercise of revisionary powers was relied upon, including Sections 664, 665, 666, 753, and 754(2) of the Code, which emphasize intervention only in e