JUDGMENT 1. - The present Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed against the order dated 3.4.1996 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hanumangarh refusing to grant temporary injunction u/O. 39 R. 1 & 2, CPC. 2. Heard. 3. Perused the order impugned under appeal dated 3.4.1996. 4. A close scrutiny of the order impugned under appeal reveals that learned trial Court had recorded positive findings on the questions of prima facie title, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and after recording the aforesaid findings on the questions of prima facie title, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, the learned trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled for temporary injunction u/O. 39 R. 1 & 2, CPC. Learned trial Court has given cogent and convincing reasons in support of the aforesaid findings with which I am at one. 5. It is held that once a discretion is exercised by the learned trial Court either granting temporary injunction or refusing to grant temporary injunction, such discretion can not be interfered in an appeal unless some compelling reasons are demonstrated before the Court which may lead to believe that if the order impugned is allowed to stand, it would either occasion a failure of justice or it would cause irreparable loss to the person against whom it is made. In the present case, nothing has been brought to my notice as to how discretion exercised by the learned trial Court refusing to grant temporary injunction if allowed to stand, it would occasion a failure of justice or it would cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff-appellants.Consequently, the instant appeal is dismissed and the order impugned dated 3.4.1996 passed by the learned trial Court refusing to grant temporary injunction is hereby affirmed.Both the parties are directed to bear their own costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******