JUDGMENT The appeal is directed against the order dated 17.7.93 of the Vth A.D.J., Indore passed in C.S. No. 10-A/93 whereby the plaintiff-appellant's application u/o. 39 R. 1 and 2 C.P.C. has been dismissed. The brief history of the case is that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit in the Court below with the assertions that he is one of the devotees of Ranchhod Das Temple and that was earlier being managed by Sheshnarain Das who was a Pujari appointed by the State. He further claims that one Shri Yajatradas is the disciple of Sheshnarain Das and he is entitled for possession of the property belonging to Ranchhod Das Temple. There is a dispute about the "Mansdas Math" and its property as well. The respondent No. 1 claims himself to be the disciple and legatee of Mahant Ramratandas who is dead. He is, therefore, interfering in the property without any right. The plaintiff therefore, sought an injunction against Ramcharan das restraining him from interference in the property of Ranchhod Das Temple. The plaintiff-appellant filed an application for temporary injunction also. The defendant-respondent No. 1 after making appearance before the Court submitted that he is disciple and legatee of Ramcharandas and he is managing the property in that capacity. Learned trial Judge has rejected the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff. Hence this appeal. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, in fact, this is a property of the State and Collector is the Manager of these properties. Defendant-respondent No. 1, Ramcharandas is unnecessarily interfering in the property of Ranchhod Das and, therefore, he should be restrained from interfering in the suit property. On perusal of the order of the trial Court and the present appeal it appears the Collector or the State of M.P. has not been made a party in the case if the property belongs to the State firstly; the plaintiff ought to have impleaded the State as a party. This is not known to this Court as to whether defendant-respondent No. 1 has, in any way, been appointed by the Collector or the State of M.P. to look into affairs and manage the property. Now, so far as the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury is concerned that has been found against the appellant. This is not known to this Court as to whether defendant-respondent No. 1 has, in any way, been appointed by the Collector or the State of M.P. to look into affairs and manage the property. Now, so far as the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury is concerned that has been found against the appellant. The appellant does not claim any right over the property and his approach is wholly negative. According to the plaintiff-appellant Sheshnarain Das, after his death Narain Das and after his death Yajtradas are entitled to manage the property then in that eventuality it is For them to contest. It is difficult to under stand what locus standi the present appellant has got in the case. Since no prima facie case has been found in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, the application for temporary injunction has rightly been dismissed. There is no substance in this appeal. As such the appeal is dismissed without notice to other side.