1 Surendar Singh and Anr. Vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1418/08) Dated:- 06.7.10. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. B.S.Sandhu, for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Shah for the respondent. 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 17.01.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Bhilwara, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 28.1.2006 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Bhilwara rejecting the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code,1908 (“CPC”) , stands dismissed. 2. The petitioner preferred a suit for permanent injunction and damages in respect of the disputed plot which admittedly stands acquired by the UIT by way of land acquisition proceedings. The petitioners claimed that they are in continuous possession of the plot and have already raised construction over the same. It was further claimed that the petitioners are entitled regularization of their possession over the plot inasmuch as other similarly situated persons' possessions have already been regularized by the UIT. 2 3. The petitioners also preferred an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC praying for temporary injunction in terms that the respondents may not dispossess them and may not create any obstructions in their use and occupation of the plot in question. 4. After due consideration, the trial court arrived at the finding that the petitioners have no prima-facie case in their favour. The Court observed that on the basis of alleged sale deed dated 1.5.1981, the petitioners' ownership over the plot is not established. The Court further observed that the petitioners' application for regularization had already been dismissed earlier and he has already been dispossessed from the plot in question on 10.3.2005. It was also not in dispute that the land in question already stands acquired by the UIT. In this view of the matter, the Court found that the balance of convenience is also not in favour of the petitioners and no irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioners if the temporary injunction is not granted in favour of the petitioners. The findings arrived at by the learned trial court has been affirmed by the appellate court. 5. It is settled law that in the matter of the temporary injunction, the jurisdiction of the appellate court is not co- extensive with that of the trial court. The appellate court can interfere with an order of the trial court granting or refusing injunction only when it is satisfied that (i) the trial court has 3 acted contrary to law or (ii) has acted arbitrarily, or (iii) that the finding of trial court regarding the three requirements of grant of injunction are perverse or capricious or (iv) that there has been a misreading of the pleadings of evidence.(vide RSEB vs. Mool Chand Jangir, 1993(3) WLC, 338.) 6. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that all the relevant aspects of the matter have been considered by the learned trial court so also by the appellate court and the concurrent findings arrived at by the courts below cannot be said to be perverse or capricious and therefore, no case for interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed . No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J. rp/-