JUDGMENT 1. - The plaintiff-petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20-2-95, passed by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, has filed this revision petition under Sec. 115 C.P.C. After admitting the petition, notices were ordered to be issued to the non-petitioners. Non-petitioners were duly served, but, none has appeared. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition may be stated as follows. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the non-petitioner-defendant in respect of plot No. 59, restraining the latter from dispossessing her to making any interference in her possession or to create any obstruction in her building activities. The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased this plot by a registered sale deed from Geeta Devi on 23-6-93. She has been is, possession ever since. A boundary wall has been constructed and a tin door has also beer installed on the northern side of the plot. Geeta Devi in turn purchased the above plot Iron. non-petitioner Prem Das on 23-7-88 also by a registered deed. The Collector (Land Conversion), issued a joint patta in respect of plots and 59. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants created obstruction when she and her relatives went into the plot. They are also not allowing her to make construction over the wall. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. 2. The defendant contested the suit as well as the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner on the ground that initially plots 58 and 59 were purchased by Premdas from Ghewarchand and he constructed his residential unit on plot No. 58. However, plot No. 59 was lying vacant, but, he stored his building material on that plot. He challenged that Geeta Devi had no authority to alienate plot No. 59 and if any sale-deed was executed, it was a forged one. When the defendant came to know about such a sale-deed, he immediately lodged a criminal report against Geeta Devi and also filed a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed. 3. The learned trial Court examined the rival claims of the parties and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has got a prima facie case in the sense that she has got a sale-deed in her favour and boundary wall has also been constructed around the plot. 3. The learned trial Court examined the rival claims of the parties and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has got a prima facie case in the sense that she has got a sale-deed in her favour and boundary wall has also been constructed around the plot. The question whether the alleged sale-deed is a genuine or a forged one is a serious question to be tried between the parties. 4. Learned appellate Court also examined tire material available on the record and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove the three essential ingredients on the basis of which the temporary injunction is issued. He dis-believed the version of the plaintiff that the boundary wall was constructed i/her. Since the non-petitioners are living nearby, it is impossible that they would have slowed the plaintiff to construct the above boundary wall. In the sale-deed, there is no mention about the boundary wall. He was also impressed by the conduct of the defendant "at as soon as the defendant came to know out the alleged sale of this plot by Geeta Devi to the plaintiff, he filed a criminal complaint and also a suit for cancellation of the love document. He even went to the extent comparing the signature of Premdas and Geeta Devi. He was of opinion that the signore on the sale-deed is not that of Premdas is therefore, allowed the appeal and vacated testay order, but, ordered for the maintenance status quo. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the approach of the learned appellate Court in disturbing the finding recorded by the learned trial Court. He referred to the decision R.S.E.B. v. Mool Chand Jangir for the proposition that ordinarily Court of Appeal will not interfere with the discretion. The mere possibility of the appellate Court coming to a different conclusion on the same facts and evidence will also not justify interference. The appellate Court would be acting contrary to the established principles more so when it did not deal with the reasoning that prevailed with the trial Court and further when it did not apply judicial mind on the materials placed on the record. Gancha Samaj v. Om Prakash (S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 562/95) decided on 11-10-95 was also cited for the principles which must govern the approach of the appellate Court in such matters. 6. Gancha Samaj v. Om Prakash (S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 562/95) decided on 11-10-95 was also cited for the principles which must govern the approach of the appellate Court in such matters. 6. Learned appellate Court was not justified while dealing with an interlocutory matter to go to the extent of comparing the disputed signature with the standard signature and recording a finding. The plaintiffs have come with a very definite case that they are basing their claim on the sale-deed executed by Geeta Devi in her favour on 23-6-93. Regarding possession, the plaintiffs has stated that there is a boundary wall and also a phatak on the plot which were constructed by her. 7. I have considered the rival contentions. As a matter of fact, there is a very serious dispute whether Smt. Geeta Devi sold the disputed plot to the plaintiff by a registered sale-deed on 23-6-93. The plaintiff not only made assertion in respect of this plot but also produced the sale-deed executed by Geeta Devi in her favour. The defendant, on the other hand, took a very serious objection and assailed that the sale-deed was a forged document. He initiated civil as well as criminal proceedings against the plaintiff Geeta Devi and other witnesses. As such it is very difficult at this stage to give any finding for the purpose of ascertaining whether a prima-facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiff or not. All the same it can be said without contradiction that a serious question is involved which requires trial whether the above transaction ever occurred or not. Regarding the possession it cannot be gain-said that there is boundary wall over the plot. There is also a gate, but the evidence as to who constructed the same is not clear and as such it cannot prima-facie be said that the plaintiff is in possession of the above plot. Looking to the serious dispute subsisting between the parties, the order of the learned appellate Court for maintaining the status quo appears to be appropriate. No further order requires to be made till the suit is decided. I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the non-petitioner must be restrained from offering any resistance to the building activity of the plaintiff. No further order requires to be made till the suit is decided. I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the non-petitioner must be restrained from offering any resistance to the building activity of the plaintiff. In that case, serious complication may arise which cannot be permitted.For the above reasons I partly allow the revision. The order of the learned appellate Court regarding maintaining status quo is upheld. The plaintiff is not entitled to any other relief.Order accordingly. *******