Short Note : 1. The plaintiff non-applicant instituted the present suit for two reliefs- (1) that he has become owner of the property by virtue of adverse possession for more than 25 years, and (2) Correction of entries in revenue papers. 2. In this suit, the plaintiff applied for issuance of interim injunction which was granted by the trial Court. This led to filing of appeal During the pendency of the appeal an application was also moved for amendment of the plaint for incorporating a new relief in respect of issuance of permanent injunction. Ultimately the appeal filed by the defendant applicants has been rejected. Aggrieved by this order the present revision has been filed. 3. The contentions of the learned counsel for the defendant-applicant are two-fold :-- (1) that in a suit of present nature, no interim injunction could be issued. Reliance is paced on 1973 JLJ 25 . (2) that the defendant is entered in possession of Khasra No 2028. Therefore, the Court below should have rejected the application for issuance of interim injunction holding him to be in possession, 4. Held: As to the nature of the suit it is not a suit for declaration simplicitor. Besides declaration the relief of correction of entries is also prayed for. Therefore, the ratio of case reported in 1973 JLJ 25 . (Ram Sahai pande v. State Industrial Court, M.P. & another) does not apply to the situation. It cannot be contended as a matter of law that application for interim injunction can be filed in a suit where permanent injunction is also prayed for. No law or authority is shown to support this contention. Consequently, the first contention advanced by the learned counsel is devoid of any substance. 5. As to the second contention the learned A.C.J. has observed that the entry of Khasra No. 2028 appears to be ex-facie spurious Therefore, ex-facie, no probative value can be attached to such entries. In all the previous Khasras the possession of the plaintiff-non-applicant has been entered. Presumption of continuity of possession also ensures to the benefit of the plaintiff. No illegality or material irregularity is demonstrated by the learned counsel to have been occasioned while passing the impugned order. Revision dismissed.