JUDGMENT 1. - As both the appeals arise out of the same order, they are being disposed of simultaneously. Application filed by the plaintiff respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was allowed by the trial court vide order dated March 29, 1993 and the defendant appellants were restrained from alienating and demolishing the property in dispute as well as from raising constructions over it. They were further restrained from using the property in question as a burial ground of private dead bodies during the pendency of the civil suit. This is the order that has now been assailed by the defendant-appellants before me. 2. In the civil suit the plaintiff respondents (for short the plaintiffs) averred that the late Tajuddin Shah by his will dated March 26, 1986 appointed a Committee of five persons for managing the Dargah of Maulana Ziauddin Saheb and its properties styling himself to be the Sajjadanashin and Mut-walli of the Dargah. The defendant appellant No. 1 Syed Zainullabedeen was not managing the Dargah of Maulana Ziauddin Saheb and its properties therefore it was necessary for the plaintiffs to file suit for possession, injunction and account of the said Dargah against the defendant-appellants (for short the defendants). 3. The defendants, in their reply to the application of temporary injunction, asserted that late Tajuddin Shah was neither Sajjadanashin nor the Mutwalli nor was the possession of the aforesaid Dargah and its properties, nor was he in any manner managing and discharging the function of the Sajjadanashin of the said Dargah. Throughout his life Shri Tajuddin claimed himself to be Sajjadanashin and later Mutwalli of the aforesaid Dargah and its properties but he lost the suits filed in that respect continuously. Therefore no prima facie case existed in their favour. Neither the balance of convenience was in their favour nor would they suffer irreparable loss in case the injunction was refused. 4. Mr. B.P. Agrawal, learned counsel for the defendants vigorously canvassed that alleged will dated March 26, 1987 was not produced before the trial court and only a copy purporting to be photostat thereof was produced and the same could not be taken into consideration without the original being produced in the court. 4. Mr. B.P. Agrawal, learned counsel for the defendants vigorously canvassed that alleged will dated March 26, 1987 was not produced before the trial court and only a copy purporting to be photostat thereof was produced and the same could not be taken into consideration without the original being produced in the court. It was next contended that the plaintiffs claimed only to represent such rights which the alleged late Tajuddin Shah had and late Tajuddin Shah having no rights in the Dargah of Maulana Ziauddin Saheb except his own personal right to reside therein which ceased with his death and therefore, nothing survived to the plaintiffs. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was simply an abuse of the process of the court. Plaintiff Nisar Ahmed is only a tenant of the Dargah and proceedings for ejectment had been filed against him. Proceedings for ejectment had been filed against Plaintiff No. 3 Sufi Mohd. Hanif in 1985. Plaintiff Mohd. Amin is the son of Sufi Mohd. Hanif and plaintiff Haji Hafij Farooq Ali, plaintiff No. 2 is such person whose father was removed from the services of the Dargah by the defendant. 5. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the defendants that even the fact of Matmi of some property alleged to be State Grant which was non existent having been granted in favour of Tajuddin Shah by the Board of Revenue in 1974 had already been considered by the Civil court and his claim to Sajjadanashin ship and Mutwalli Ship of the Dargah having already been considered and' dismissed, there was nothing on the basis of which it could be said that there was a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs. 6. I have been taken through the judgment appended with the file of the trial court. It was contended by the learned counsel that the trial court did not consider the judgments while passing the impugned order. Sum and substance of argument of learned counsel was that interim injunction could not have been issued in favour of the plaintiffs. Reliance was placed on Dalpat Kumar v. Prahalad Singh ( 1992(1) SCC 719 ) . 7. Mr. R.S. Purohit, learned counsel for the plaintiffs on the other hand supported the impugned order. Learned counsel placed before me the original will. Reliance was placed on Dalpat Kumar v. Prahalad Singh ( 1992(1) SCC 719 ) . 7. Mr. R.S. Purohit, learned counsel for the plaintiffs on the other hand supported the impugned order. Learned counsel placed before me the original will. Learned counsel vehemently contended that all the three ingredients i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss are in favour of the plaintiffs and the learned trial court rightly issued the temporary injunction. 8. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and from the perusal of record, I am of the considered view that the learned trial court though passed a detailed order but did not properly consider the prima facie case in the light of the various judgments filed by the defendants. 9. Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (supra) was the case where their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded thus: "Therefore, the burden is on the plaintiff or otherwise that there is a `prima facie case' in his favour which needs adjudication at the trial. The existence of the prima facie right and infraction of the enjoyment of his property or the right is a condition for the grant of temporary injunction. Prima facie is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be established, on evidence at the trial. Only prima facie case is a substantial question raised, bonafide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits." 10. Without expressing my opinion into merits and demerits of the case I am of the opinion that the judgments passed at the various stages of litigation should be looked into while scanning the questions raised in support of the prima facie case. In not doing so the learned trial court committed illegality in passing the order impugned. 11. Consequently, I allow the appeals and set aside the order dated March 29, 1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 7 Jaipur City. I remit the case to the learned trial court for deciding the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC afresh after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties in view of the observations made herein above. The record of the case be sent forthwith so as to reach the trial court on or before May 26, 1997. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on May 28, 1997 for seeking further instructions. The record of the case be sent forthwith so as to reach the trial court on or before May 26, 1997. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on May 28, 1997 for seeking further instructions. The trial court is expected to adjudicate upon the application within two months from the date of receipt of this order, till then the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of property in dispute as it exists today. Costs easy.Appeal Allowed. *******