IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7210 of 2010 1. Kailash Prasad Kejriwal, S/O Satya Narain Kejriwal, R/O Village- Ishipur Barahat, P.O.- Ishipur, P.S- Pirapainti , District- Bhagalpur. 2. Mantu Rajak, S/O Jagdish Rajak, R/O Village- Ishipur Barahat, P.O.- Ishipur, P.S- Pirapainti , District- Bhagalpur. 3. Basuki Bhagat, S/o- Late Shiv Prasad Bhagat 4. Rama Nand Kejriwal, S/O Late Sri Mohan Sharma, all R/O Village- Ishipur Barahat, P.O.- Ishipur, P.S- Pirapainti , District- Bhagalpur. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through D.M. Phagalpur. 2. Shyam Sundar Pansari, S/O Late Sri Niwas Pansari, Mohalla- Ishipur Barahat,P.S.- Pirpainti, District- Bhagalpur. ----------- 2 26.09.2011 Mr. Subodh Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shatrughan Prasad, learned A.C. to S.C.3 for the State are present. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.12.2009 passed by the 2nd Additional Judge, Bhagalpur in Misc. Appeal No. 27 of 2008 whereby the learned Court below has been pleased to reject the appeal filed by the petitioner under Order 43 Rule 1(r) and confirm the order dated 02.12.2008 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-II, Bhagalpur in Title Suit No. 293 of 2008 whereby the prayer for temporary injunction against the defendant-respondent No.2, has been refused. The suit in question has been filed in a representative capacity by the plaintiff-petitioner claiming the suit land to be a part of a Shiva- Parvati temple. It is the case of the plaintiff-petitioner that the Shiva- Parvati temple was installed way back in the year 1945 over plot bearing C.S.P. No. 400, measuring 32 decimals and C.S.P.No.401 measuring 9 decimals. It is further case that the local villagers had authorized the father of the defendant-respondent No.2 for performing Puja in the temple. It is the further the case of the petitioner that the father of the defendant-respondent no-2 got entered the name of the 2 mother of the respondent No.2 in the revisional survey khatiyan over the disputed plots and were claiming the land adjacent to the temple as their own. It is in these circumstances that the suit came to be filed at the behest of the local villagers giving rise to Title Suit No. 293 of 2008. A petition seeking ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was filed and which was refused by the trial Court by the order dated 02.12.2008, which order was challenged by the petitioner by way of appeal giving rise to Misc. Appeal No. 27 of 2008 and which was also dismissed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur by order dated 24.12.2009 and hence the present writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that even when the title of the defendant-respondent No. 2 is in question in the title suit, he has proceeded to make construction and which fact is manifest from the pleader report placed at Annexure-2 to the writ petition and whereunder the Pleader Commissioner has certified that the construction was being carried out by the defendant-respondent No.2. It is contended that the defendant-respondent No.2 in the process of construction is obstructing the passage leading to the temple and that it is in these circumstances that the prayer for injunction had been made before the learned Courts below. The same having been refused hence the present writ petition. The findings of the Courts below refusing to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff-petitioners are findings of fact and are conclusive as to the situation prevailing. Learned appellate Court while considering the Misc. Appeal of the petitioner in no uncertain terms has concluded that the recorded entry is in the name of defendant- 3 respondent No.2 and that whereas the defendant-respondent No.2 was indeed carrying out constructions over the plot marked as Schedule-B land and which in terms of the survey khatiyan register was separate and bounded, there was no impediment as to the passage leading to the temple. In so far as the claim of the plaintiff-petitoners who are local villagers over the temple land and the land adjacent is concerned, learned court below has held that the same could only be adjudicated during the process of trial. The prayer for injunction having been refused by the trial Court and the appellate Court by a conclusive finding of fact and not suffering from any legal infirmity or error of jurisdiction, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not find any necessity to interfere with the same. The writ petition is dismissed. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)