IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.514 of 2007 RAGHUNANDAN SINGH & ORS …… Appellants Versus BIPAT SINGH & ORS ……… Respondents. ----------- For the appellants: Mr.B.M.Kishore Singh, Advocate For the respondents:Mr. 11 11.5.2010 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants under Order 41 rule 11 C.P.C. 2. The defendants appellants have filed this appeal against the order dated 13.8.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C.-Ist, Vaishali at Hajipur, in T.A. No.19/06 whereby the learned lower appellate court rejected the application for injunction. 3. It appears that the plaintiffs respondents filed Title Suit No.11/02 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession. The said suit was decreed. Thereafter the defendants filed Title Appeal No.19/06. During the pendency of that appeal the appellants filed injunction application praying therein to restrain the plaintiffs- respondents from demolishing the wall which is part of the residential house of the appellant. 4. The plaintiffs respondents filed show cause protesting the prayer. 5. After hearing the parties the learned appellate court rejected the injunction application. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Judgment and decree of the trial court was under 2 challenge before the lower appellate court and, therefore, during the pendency of the appeal the appellate court should have granted injunction because the respondents were trying to demolish the wall causing irreparable loss to the plaintiffs. According to the learned counsel since the appeal was pending the lower appellate court should not have looked into the finding of the learned trial court. 7. From perusal of the trial court Judgment it appears that this suit for declaration has been decreed the plaintiffs respondents are found in possession of the same. It appears that the lower court has referred to this finding in the impugned order. Now, therefore, unless the finding of the learned trial court is set aside no injunction can be granted because it will amount to upset the finding of the trial court. Prima facie before the lower appellate court there was a finding which was arrived at by the court after consideration of the evidence and the materials on record. The learned trial, therefore, has rightly said that at this stage the appellants’ title and possession cannot be accepted. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find no illegality in the impugned order. As such there is no reason to interfare with the impugned order. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. AnilKr.Sinha ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. )