1 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1799/2007 Smt.Bhagwati Devi versus Kishan Lal Date of Judgment :: 6th February, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Jitendra Chopra, for the appellant. Mr. Surendra Surana, for the respondent. .... This is an appeal under Order XXXXIII Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure to challenge the order dated 10.5.2007 passed by learned District Judge, Abu Road rejecting an application seeking temporary injunction by the applicant appellant. In brief, facts of the case are that by way of filing a suit for permanent injunction the applicant appellant sought a decree to restrain the defendant respondent from completing the construction of building on the land adjacent to the land in possession of the plaintiff. The trial court, after considering entire material available on record, rejected the application preferred by the appellant alongwith the suit. The trial court did not find either prima facie case in favour of granting 2 temporary injunction as prayed, the balance of convenience in favour of granting the temporary injunction or any irreparable injury to the plaintiff. The trial court also reached at the conclusion that completion of construction is desirable to ensure security. By this appeal challenge to the order aforesaid dated 10.5.2007 is given. The contention of counsel for the appellant is that the land in question has been unauthorisedly acquired and is taken into possession by the defendant respondent, therefore, the court should have granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendant respondent from raising construction. I have examined the order impugned. Learned trial court after considering whatever material available on record, exercised the jurisdiction vested with it with all objectivity and that does not suffer from any arbitrariness, capriciousness or perversity, as such no case is made out for any interference by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. The trial has taken into consideration, whatever material that is available on record and as a matter of fact, the trial court permitted the defendant to complete the work to ensure security and that is in general interest. 3 The appeal is having no merit, accordingly dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.