JUDGMENT 1. - The plaintiff-appellant has filed this appeal u/0.43 R.1 CPC against the order dated 24.9.1996 passed by Shri Gori Shankar Saraf, Distt. & Sessions Judge, Merta rn Civil Misc. Case No. 4/95 whereby the learned Distt. Judge dismissed the application filed by the appellant u/O. 39 Rr. 1"& 2 CPC. 2. The plaintiff filed Civil Suit no. 2/95 on 16.1.1995 in the Court of the learned Distt. Judge for declaration that the decree dated 14.5.1994 passed in Civil Original suit No. 6/67 and partly confirmed in the appeal by this Court on 1.7.1986 is a nullity and ineffective against the plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff averred that the plaintiff was not a party in that suit and the decree that has been passed is not at all binding on him. The plaintiff further averred that he has been in possession of the disputed land since 19.9.1959 as a result of acquisition of the above land by the Government and its subsequent transfer to the plaintiff. In the revenue record also, the above land has been shown in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further mentioned that Joravarmal, father of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 4/60 on 4.1.1960 in this Court impleading the present plaintiff-appellant as one of the respondents and prayed for a direction that the respondents be restrained from raising construction over the land. Though an ad-intern,, stay order was passed by this Court on 6.1.1960 but the writ petition was dismissed on 19.7.1962. After five years, the said Joravarmal filed Civil Suit No. 7/67 in the Court of the learned Distt. Judge, Merta against the State of Rajasthan only. The present appellant was not impleaded as detendant in that suit. The learned Distt. Judge decreed the above suit on 14.5.1974. The defendant preferred an appeal against the above order which was decided by this Court as section 13. Civil First Appeal No. 160/74 on 1.7.1986. In that suit, Joravarmal had alleged that he purchased the land in Court auction on 6.1.1958. It may further be mentioned that the present appellant was a party as the suit was contested by then E.D.O. on behalf of the State of Rajasthan. 3. Along with the above suit, the appellant-plaintiff also field an application u/O. 391 & 2 CPC mainly praying that the defendants be restrained from interfering with his possession. The learned Distt. It may further be mentioned that the present appellant was a party as the suit was contested by then E.D.O. on behalf of the State of Rajasthan. 3. Along with the above suit, the appellant-plaintiff also field an application u/O. 391 & 2 CPC mainly praying that the defendants be restrained from interfering with his possession. The learned Distt. Judge, after hearing both the parties and appreciating the material facts available on the record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has got no prima facie case and there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 160/74 whereby it was categorically held by Ex. A-12 did not confer any right, title or interest on the Panchayat Samiti or the State. It was further held that the right, title and interest over the said land vested in Joravarmal as he was the real auction purchaser and the Court also granted sale certificate in his favour on 16.11.1958. During the above proceedings, Shivnath mali filed an application u/O. 21 R. 58 CPC but it was dismissed by the Executing Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellants has very vehemently assailed the order of the learned Distt. Judge on the ground that the learned Distt. Judge lost sight of a very important fact that the above judgment and decree (suit No. 7/67) did not bind the plaintiff inasmuch as he was not as party. The plaintiff has been in peaceful uninterrupted possession of the above disputed land since 19.9.1959. The plaintiff was thus entitled to base his suit on such long possession. It was not even necessary for him to have proved his title for obtaining an interlocutory order in his favour on the basis of such possession. The learned Distt. Judge, therefore, had the right to stay the execution of the decree. The fact was strongly in favour of the plaintiff that since he was not a party in the above suit, the decree passed by the Distt. Judge or the observations made in appeal by this Court had no binding effect on the plaintiff. He has placed reliance on the following cases : 5. Madanmohan v. Ratan Prasad, 1977 Raj. The fact was strongly in favour of the plaintiff that since he was not a party in the above suit, the decree passed by the Distt. Judge or the observations made in appeal by this Court had no binding effect on the plaintiff. He has placed reliance on the following cases : 5. Madanmohan v. Ratan Prasad, 1977 Raj. 191 , Princess Falima v. Mozzam Jah Bahadur, 1980 AP 315 and S. Manohar v. E.K. Govinda Raj Setty, 1996 (1) CCC 472 . 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order of the learned Distt. Judge on the ground that in the above suit, the learned Distt. Judge, during the trial, made investigation regarding the title of Joravarmal and Shivnath Mali and categorically held that Joravarmal acquired complete title over the land comprising the disputed land as an auction purchaser when the land was sold in Court auction. The sale certificate was also granted in his favour. In appeal, this Court categorically gave a finding that by Ex. A-12 no right, title or interest accrued to the plaintiff because the land did not belong to Shivnath Mali from whom the Government claims to have acquired the same. The writ petition 4/60, though dismissed, did not determine the right of Joravarmal adversely. The respondents' possession was upheld by this Court in the above appeal. The plaintiff, therefore, had no prima facie case and the balance of convenience was also not in his favour. He further submitted that while deciding appeal against an interlocutary order, the appellate Court has got limited jurisdiction and normally no interference made in the order passed by the lower Court unless it is perverse or against the settled principles of law or capricious. 7. I have considered the arguments and perused the record. 8. Learned trial Court in para 7 of the impugned order has clearly stated that the plaintiff could not produce any document regarding acquisition and allotment of the land in his favour. Admittedly, the plaintiff could have derived his title only from the Government and as the facts of the litigation disclosed the State Government purported to have acquired right and title. The State Government was a party in suit No. 7/67. Admittedly, the plaintiff could have derived his title only from the Government and as the facts of the litigation disclosed the State Government purported to have acquired right and title. The State Government was a party in suit No. 7/67. While deciding this appeal, this court recorded a categorical finding and upheld the right, title and interest of Joravarmal in respect of the land comprising the disputed land and negating the right of the State Government because Ex. A-12 was hold not to bestow any right, title or interest on the State Government of which the plaintiff is the successor-in-interest. At page 37, this Court observed : "I have already held that the title of the Panchayat Samiti over the disputed land is defective because Ex. A-12 does not confer any title on them to hold any part of this land ......." 9. It may be stated that the above remark was made while appreciating the contention urged on behalf of the State Government that the land was transferred by Shivnath Mali by document Ex. A-12. The observation as against the State Government has got relevancy because the plaintiff can only base his claim on the basis of derivative title from the State Government. In the above judgment, it was also observed that after obtaining sale certificate from the Court, Joravarmal also obtained possession of the land through the Court. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court cannot be assailed to be perverse or baseless. 10. The order passed u/O. 39 Rr.1 & 2 CPC is an interlocutary order and normally the appellate Court does not interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court unless it is found that the trial Court is guilty of perversity or contravention of the well established principle of law.For the above reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Distt. Judge. There is no force in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Misc. Appeal dismissed. *******