JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.5.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur whereby the application. filed by the appellant- plaintiff u/O. 39 Rr. I & 2 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. was partly allowed and partly rejected. 3. The disputed property consists of open land as well as some area covered by the buildings. The plaintiff- appellant's case is that the entire property is joint property and no partition has taken place and, therefore, the defendants-respondents, have no right to transfer this property after making any construction without the consent of the appellant. It is also the plaintiff-appellant's case that the defendants-respondents are trying to construct buildings on the joint property without the consent of the plaintiff. 4. The learned Addl. Distt. Judge allowed the plaintiff- appellant's application u/O. 39 Rr I & 2 r/w Section 151 C.P.C., so far as the prayer for grant of injunction in respect of open land was concerned. The defendants- respondents were restrained from erecting any constructions on the open land as well as from transferring the same to any person. So far as the additional constructions on the covered area, other than those which had been approved by the Municipal Corporation are concerned, they were also prohibited by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge. However, the plaintiff's application for restraining the defendants- respondents from constructing buildings in accordance with the plan approved by the Municipal Corporation on the first floor of the building, already standing on the land was rejected. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff- appellant has approached this Court. 5. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge shows that two things were taken into consideration by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge for the purpose of ascertaining if there is a prima facie case. The first is a will produced by the defendants- respondents purporting to have been executed in the year 1957 by Late Alladin. The second thing was the possession of the defendants-respondents on a part of the disputed land and the approval of the plan of construction by the Municipal Corporation. The learned Addl. Distt. Judge further took into consideration the fact that in the earlier suit an application for injunction had been filed but the same was not allowed. The second thing was the possession of the defendants-respondents on a part of the disputed land and the approval of the plan of construction by the Municipal Corporation. The learned Addl. Distt. Judge further took into consideration the fact that in the earlier suit an application for injunction had been filed but the same was not allowed. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the garb of the impugned order, the defendants have constructed a stair-case on the open land and also covered some portion of the open land in contravention of the order issued by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge and an application has already been filed in the Court of the learned Addl. Distt. Judge No. 2, Jodhpur for taking suitable action for committing breach of the injunction order issued by the Court and that application is pending. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the question whether the respondents have made any construction on the open land in contravention of the order issued by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge, deserves to be decided by the lower Court in accordance with law and no observation can be made in this appeal in that behalf. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the alleged will is a forged document and on the face of it, it does not appear to be genuine. In this appeal, no observation need be made about the genuineness or otherwise of the will relied upon by the respondents. It is for the lower Court to inquire into the genuineness or otherwise of the will in accordance with law and give a finding after hearing both the parties. 9. The second fact on which reliance has been placed by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge is that the respondents are in continuous possession of some portion of the disputed property on which a building is already existing and that they have obtained the approval of the Municipal Corporation for constructing a building on the first floor. After carefully considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Distt. After carefully considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, permitting the respondents to proceed with the construction on the first floor on the building which is in their continuous possession and in accordance with the approved plan, does not appear to suffer from any infirmity. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal has no force. It deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage and is hereby dismissed. In case the property is adjudged to be a joint property, nothing contained in the ad-interim order passed by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge shall prevent the plaintiff-appellant from seeking his relief in the suit, subject to all just defences which may be available to the respondents.Revision dismissed. *******