IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.265 of 2009 1. RATAN KUMAR SON OF LATE MAHAVIR MAHTON 2. MURARI KUMAR SON OF RAMANAND MAHTON BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – RASALPUR, P.S. MEDNI CHOWKI (SURAJGARHA), DISTRICT LAKHISARAI. ----- PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS-PETITIONERS. Versus 1. NATHUNI MAHTON SON OF LATE RAM MAHTON 2. SUBODH MAHTON 3. BISHUNDEO MAHTON 4. PRADEEP MAHTON OPPOSITE PARTIES NO. 2, 3 AND 4 ARE SONS OF NATHUNI MAHTON, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RASALPUR, P.S. MEDNI CHOWKI (SURAJGARHA), DIST. LAKHISARAI ----DEFENDANTS 1ST PARTY-RESPONDENTS 1ST PARTY-OPPOSITE PARTY (1ST PARTY) 5. MANI LAL MEHTA SON OF LATE BADRI MAHTON 6. MAHENDRA PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE BADRI MAHTON 7. BRAHMDEO MEHTA SON OF LATE BADRI MAHTON 8. MUKESH KUMAR 9. RUPESH KUMAR 10. RAJESH KUMAR 11. BRAJESH KUMAR ALL SONS OF LATE DEVKI NANDAN MAHTON 12. UMA SHANKAR MEHTA, SON OF LATE MAHABIR MAHTON 13. SHAMBHU KUMAR SON OF RAMANAND MAHTON ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RASALPUR, P.S. MEDNI CHOWKI (SURAJGARHA), DIST. LAKHISARAI ---- DEFENDANTS IIND PARTY-RESPONDENT IIND PARTY-OPPOSITE PARTY II PARTY ------- For the petitioners : Md. Nasrul Huda Khan, Adv. Md. Irshad, Adv. For the opposite parties : None -------- 2. 18/2/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Plaintiffs-appellants-petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court V, Lakhisarai, in Misc. Appeal No. 23 of 2006 whereby he has dismissed the appeal filed against the order dated 27.9.2006 passed by Munsif, Lakhisarai, in Title Suit No. - 2 - 28 of 2004. Plaintiffs filed a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the C.P.C. for grant of injunction restraining the defendants from construction over the suit land during pendency of the suit. The trial court after hearing the rival submissions has found that there is neither any prima-facie case nor any balance of convenience which lay in favour of the plaintiffs. If the suit is decreed, the plaintiff would be entitled to take possession of the suit property. Therefore, it has also been held by the trial court that there is no irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of the money. The lower appellate court has also found in the impugned order dated 26.11.2008 that the factum of encroachment made by the respondent-1st party is not clear even from the report of the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner. The plaintiff-appellants could not give a clear- cut picture with regard to the alleged encroachment and also upon which part of the encroached property, the defendant concerned is willing to make construction and had, thus, found that there is neither any prima-facie case nor any balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the encroached property, construction has already been made by the defendant concerned but he should be refrained from making further construction upon the vacant portion. However, he failed to point out the portion or area of the disputed - 3 - property which still remained vacant and upon which the plaintiffs apprehend that construction would be raised in future by the defendant concerned. In view of the above, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 26.11.2008. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. S.Ali (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)