Short Note : The applicant plaintiff claimed temporary injunction by contending that he had been in occupation of about 3 bighas of land out of the suit survey number for the last more than 16 years. The plaintiff claimed to occupy the suit land as a subtenant by obtaining the same on lease from one Jawariya who was recorded as co-owner of the suit survery numbers along with the present defendant non-applicant Ramcharanlal and Prabhudas. 2. The trial Court granted temporary injunction. The lower appellate Court has, however, reversed the said order by observing that there was no material on record to infer that any such lease was granted to the plaintiff in the year 1960 or that he had been in possession of the same since then. Held : There was no entry either disclosing him as a subtenant or even showing him in possession till Samvat year 2028. Even in that year, he had been simply shown to be in possession of 3 bighas of land without any indication that he was in possession as a sub-tenant or in any other capacity as a licensee from the owners of the holding, Again in the next year, i.e., Samvat 2029, there is no mention of his possession. He tried to base his claim by contending that the entries showing one Amra in possession related to his possession because the said Amra had occupied it under his permission. There is an affidavit from Amra denying this allegation and stating that he was the agricultural servant of the other side and not of the plaintiff. Then in the Samvat year 2029, the plaintiff had not been shown to be in possession. At the time of the institution of the suit, there was a serious dispute. The plaintiff, however, initially in his application for temporary injunction, said that he was in possession of the suit lands but ultimately disclosed that the non-applicant Ramcharan had cultivated the suit lands in September 1976. A Commissioner was appointed for special enquiry. According to the report of the Commissioner, Ramcharan was found to be in possession of the crops standing in the fields. Ramcharan was already a recorded co-owner of the holding. There is no prima facie evidence to establish that the plaintiff had been permitted to occupy any part of the suit holding as a sub-tenant except his bare say in his own favour. Ramcharan was already a recorded co-owner of the holding. There is no prima facie evidence to establish that the plaintiff had been permitted to occupy any part of the suit holding as a sub-tenant except his bare say in his own favour. The entices in the Khasra too appear to be doubtful for the reason that there was no entry for the last 16 years during which period the plaintiff claimed to be in occupation of the lands. Certain intermitant entries in the Khasra of 2028 and 2030 did not inspire confidence. Under these circumstances, the lower appellate Court was of the opinion that no case was made out for restraining the non-applicant Ramcharan who was already a recorded Bhumiswami and who was undisputedly in actual physical possession of the suit land. The grant of temporary injunction depends upon various factors i.e., prima facie case and balance of convenience also, apart from the actual physical possession. In the present case, it is not possible to say that the lower appellate Court either acted beyond jurisdiction or committed any material irregularity in deciding the question of grant of temporary injunction. There is sufficient material on record to justify the view taken by the lower appellate Court. The scope of interference in revision with such orders made in the matter of grant or refusal of temporary injunction is little. On going through the order made by the trial Court and the copy of Khasra produced before this Court, during the course of hearing, I am satisfied that the lower appellate Court was justified in reversing the order made by the trial Court. Revision dismissed.