IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.550 of 2009 Kameshwar Prasad Mehta @ Kameshwar Prasad Mahatha, son of late Jag Jyoti Prasad Mehta, residents of Village-Bahera Jahidpur, P.S. Nanpur, District-Sitamarhi ---- Plaintiff-Plaintiff--- Petitioner Versus 1. Devendra Prasad Mahatha, son of late Prahalad Mahatha 2. Mitesh Kumar, son of Devendra Prasad Mahatha, both residents of Village-Bahera Jahidpur, P.S. Nanpur, District- Sitamarhi ---- Defendant Ist Party--- Respondents --- Opposite Parties. 3. Smt. Kamala Devi, wife of late Shrinarain Mahatha, residents of Village-Balas and Kala, P.S. & Sub-division Belsand, District-Sitamarhi --- Defendant 2nd Party – Respondent --- Opposite Party. 4. Gopal Prasad Mehta 5. Shankar Prasad Mehta, both sons of late Surendra Prasad Mehta, residents of Village-Bahera Jahidpur, P.S. Nanpur, District-Sitamarhi ---- Plaintiffs --- Appellants --- Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- 5. 24.11.2011 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr. Alok Kumar for opposite party no.1. The plaintiff of Title Suit No. 238 of 2003 has preferred this civil revision application under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and is aggrieved by the order dated 24.12.2008, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum- F.T.C. No.III, Sitamarhi, in Misc. Appeal No. 06 of 2004/01 of 2008, whereby his appeal has been rejected, and the order of the learned trial court refusing to 2 grant ad interim injunction, has been upheld. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the opposite party. It appears to us that the plaintiff (the petitioner herein) filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was rejected by the learned trial court in the suit bearing Title Suit No.238 of 2003. Aggrieved by the order, the plaintiff preferred the aforesaid appeal which was rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the plaintiff has not been able to make out a prima facie case, nor balance of convenience lies in his favour. These are valid reasons for rejecting an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of civil Procedure. We agree with the impugned. The civil revision application is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)