Short Note : 1. The lower appellate Court after taking into consideration the documentary evidence in the shape of certified copies of the public records regarding the orders passed by the Revenue Courts in favour of the defendants holding that the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs unlawfully dispossessed the defendants from the suit-land and that the defendants were already placed in possession of the suit-land in execution of the order of the Revenue Court long before the institution of the suit, recorded a finding that the defendants were in actual possession of the suit-land and, therefore, there was no prime facie case with plaintiff to claim temporary injunction. The lower appellate Court further observed that even on merits the plaintiffs has not been able to disclose as to how and under what right they came in possession of the suit-land in the Samvat year 2003. The lower appellate Court further observed that though the plaintiffs could remain in possession for a period of about 28 years during the pendency of the proceedings before the Revenue Courts for their eviction, the same would nut give any right to them and when the defendants were already put in possession of the suit-land in execution of the order of the Revenue Court long before the institution of the suit, there was no scope for considering the request of the plaintiffs for giant of temporary Injunction against the defendants. Held : In my opinion, at the time of consideration of a case of temporary injunction, Courts are required to see whether there is a prima facie case in favour of the party concerned. The order made on the application for temporary injunction is not going to debar the plaintiffs from establishing the fact at the stage of trial that despite the execution proceedings they were in possession of the suit-land on the date of the suit and, as such, their suit was tenable for grant of permanent injunction also The plaintiffs are always free either to continue their suit or to amend the same for claiming the alternative relief of possession, but so far as the question involved in the present revision is concerned, the documents in the shape of orders passed in the proceedings before the competent Revenue Courts are sufficient enough to hold that no case is made out for interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is such matters. The order made by the lower appellate Court is a discretionary order. It is based on sufficient material on record. The discretion cannot be said to have been exercised arbitrarily nor it could be pointed out that the lower appellate Court acted with material irregularity while dealing with the question of temporary injunction The lower appellate Court has taken into consideration all the relevant factors and has rightly found for the purposes of temporary injunction that not only a prima facie case was in favour of the defendants but the plaintiffs were also not, entitled to the grant of temporary injunction even on the consideration of balance of convenience and irreparable loss. When on the face of the documents on record the defendants were found to be in possession of the suit-lands long before the institution of the suit, there was no alternative but to reject the application of the plaintiffs for temporary injunction and to allow that of the defendants. Revision dismissed.