This is a revision petition against the order of the Addl. Commissioner, Bikaner, dated 9-9-6l, whereby he accepted the appeal against the order of the Asstt. Collector, Jalore, dated 10-8-61, and directed that the temporary injunction granted by the learned Asstt. Collector in favour of the plaintiffs-opposite party restraining the defendants-applicants be vacated in respect of 1 /5th of the land which had been entered in the name of the defendants-applicants in the Khasra Girdawari for the Smt. year 2017. The proceedings arise out of. a suit filed by the plaintiffs-opposite party for permanent injunction against the defendants-applicants in respect of the suit lands. Simultaneously, the plaintiffs-opposite party filed an application under sec. 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for the grant of temporary injunction pending the suit. The temporary injunction was granted by the learned Asstt. Collector and a notice was issued to the defendants-applicants who denied the sole possession of the plaintiffs-opposite party and also filed a petition for the grant of temporary injunction against them in respect of the land which was in their possession. After hearing both the parties, the Asstt. Collector, Jalore, dismissed the petition of the defendants-applicants and made the temporary injunction issued by him in favour of the plaintiffs-opposite party absolute vide his order dated 10-8-61. An appeal was filed against this order by the defendants-applicants. As stated above, the appellate Court vacated the injunction in respect of l/5th of the land. The present revision petition is directed against the order. It has been averred in the grounds of revision that the order of the learned Addl. Commissioner whereby the petitioners have been allowed to retain the possession over the l/5th of the land is bad in Saw inasmuch as the land is being Cultivated by the contesting parties jointly and there is no demarcation of the 1/5th share held to be under the cultivation of the petitioners as, is evident from perusal of the Khasra Girdawari for the St. year 2017 which is the basis of the impugned order. It has been, further, averred that the disputed lands are under the Khudkasht of the petitioners and, further, that their crops are standing thereon, and, therefore, the impugned order should be set aside. year 2017 which is the basis of the impugned order. It has been, further, averred that the disputed lands are under the Khudkasht of the petitioners and, further, that their crops are standing thereon, and, therefore, the impugned order should be set aside. A perusal of the Khasra Girdawari which is the basis of the impugned order shows that Basti Chand S/o Peera held 1/5th share in Khasra No. 973 during the Zavad crop of St. year 2017 while Prahlad and Sawiya etc. were responsible for the cultivation of the remaining 4/5th share. The entries for the preceding years do not bear the name of Basti Chand at all. Similarly in Khasra No. 975 also the name of Basti Chand has been entered for the first time during the St. year 2017. The other Khasra numbers do not contain any entry in favour of Basti Chand. Prima facie, this indicates three things. Firstly, that the possession of Basti Chand is very recent, secondly, it does not extend to the entire suit land and thirdly, there is no definite indication with regard to the lands under the cultivation of Basti Chand, as has been alleged by the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to Birdhilal Vs. Mathuralal (1964 RRD 88) in which it was observed that a co-sharer could not be ejected as a trespasser from a joint holding unless a partition or division of holding had been carried out and it was held that the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction was ill founded and temporary injunction could not be granted. This case has no relevance to the present revision petition. The petitioners are not the co-sharers or the co-tenants of the plaintiffs opposite party. The Khasra Girdawari entries establish a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs opposite party, and as there is no demarcation of the land under the cultivation of the contesting parties, the order of the lower appellate court is likely to create further complications. The purpose of an order under sec. 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is to provide a temporary remedy with a view to preserving the subject matter in the controversy in its existing condition, without determining any question of right. The purpose of an order under sec. 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is to provide a temporary remedy with a view to preserving the subject matter in the controversy in its existing condition, without determining any question of right. The object is to prevent further perpetration of wrong or the doing of any act whereby the right in controversy may be injured or endangered. The grant of a temporary injunction is a matter of discretion and unless the discretion has been improperly exercised, the appellate courts should not normally interfere with that exercise. In the present case, I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order is bad in law inasmuch as it seeks to vacate the injunction granted by the Asstt. Collector, Jalore, in respect of 1/5th of the land which has not been clearly demarcated. I, therefore, agree that this order should be set aside. As the foregoing discussion shows there is prima facie evidence indicating that the suit lands were in the possession of the plaintiffs opposite party in St. year 2016 and before and that only a small portion came in the possession of the petitioners during the Zavad crop of the St. year 2017. It therefore, appears to me to be appropriate to restore the order of the learned Asstt. Collector, Jalore, dated 10-8-61 until the matter in controversy is finally adjudicated upon. In the result, therefore, I accept the revision petition, set aside the order of the learned Addl. Commissioner and restore the order of the Asstt. Collector, Jalore, dated 10-8-61.