JUDGMENT Appellant Abdul Jabbar claims to be in possession of a parcel of land contending inter alia that he had obtained a Patta in respect thereof under the Madhya Pradesh Nagariya Kshetro Ke Bhoomihin Vyakti (Pattadhriti Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana) Adhiniyam, 1984 (M.P. Act No. 15 of 1984) (here-in-after called 'the Adhiniyam' for short). Number of facts were stated at the Bar by the learned counsel for the appellant about the widening of road, demolition of construction etc. which are really not relevant and are not germane to the question in dispute. Abdul Jabbar contends that he is in possession of the aforesaid premises under the aforesaid Patta and, therefore, prayed for a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with his possession under the garb of an evidence decree which the respondent has obtained against Bafati who is the father of Abdul Jabbar. The respondent on the other hand argued that Abdul Jabbar is the son of Bafati and is in fact in possession of the part of the premises covered by eviction decree obtained by him against Bafati. All said and done, one fact is clear from the entire tangle that the threat to possession of Abdul Jabbar is said to be on account of execution of an eviction decree obtained by the respondent against Abdul Jabbar's father, Bafati. If that be so, Jabbar can always resist execution of decree if he was not a party to it and raise legal grounds as to its execution in execution proceedings. It does not appear necessary to make any comment about the nature and validity of the alleged Patta said to have been obtained by Abdul Jabbar or the scope and extent of the aforesaid Adhiniyam and settlement of land with Abdul Jabbar under it. It is so said because the basic reason why the ad- interim temporary injunction is sought is a possible threat to possession under the garb of execution of the eviction decree by the respondent. This cannot be a sufficient ground for grant of a temporary injunction and the lower Court was correct in rejecting the prayer of the appellant for issuance of a temporary injunction. Abdul Jabbar is free to raise such objections as available to him under the law to resist the decree for eviction, if he can show that he is holding possession independently of Judgment-debtor Bafati, his father. Abdul Jabbar is free to raise such objections as available to him under the law to resist the decree for eviction, if he can show that he is holding possession independently of Judgment-debtor Bafati, his father. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal has no force and is dismissed with no order as to costs.