- (1.) THE challenge in this revision petition, preferred by Sajjan Singh son of Maha Singh and others petitioners -plaintiffs (for brevity "the plaintiffs"), is to the impugned order dated 18.5.2011 (Annexure P2), by virtue of which, the trial Court has dismissed their application for ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC filed by them in a suit for permanent injunction and the impugned order dated 23.12.2013 (Annexure P3), by means of which, their appeal was dismissed as well, by the appellate Court.
(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners -plaintiffs, going through the record with his valuable help and considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this respect.
(3.) EX facie, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that since the Courts below have ignored the rough site plan annexed with the plaint, so, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside, lacks merit. As is evident from the record that initially, the plaintiffs have instituted the civil suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining Ram Kishan son of Shiv Lal and others respondents -defendants (for short "the defendants") from demolishing/removing the wall in dispute. The plaintiffs did not produce any material, except the rough site plan in order to substantiate their plea contained in the plaint. Mere production of rough site plan is not sufficient to grant the injunction to them. On the contrary, the defendants claimed that the plaintiffs are trying to encroach upon their passage. Taking into consideration the fact that plaintiffs have miserably failed either to prove prima facie case or balance of convenience in their favour for lack of sufficient material, the trial Court has dismissed their injunction application, by way of impugned order (Annexure P2).;