JUDGMENT 1. - The defendant-petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 against the order dated 5.2.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur whereby the learned Addl. District Judge has set aside the order dated 8.10.1996 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge [junior Division] No. 2, Jodhpur and granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-non-petitioner. 2. The case of the defendant-petitioner is that the plaintiff-non-petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-petitioner. Along with that suit, they also filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC alleging therein that they are the residents of Ahuja Colony near Air Force. Their houses are situated in a straight line. It was alleged that towards the southern side of the houses of plaintiff-non-petitioners No. 1, 2 & 4, there is a three feet wide lane which was left for the purpose of light and air and towards that lane, even the windows and doors of the houses of the plaintiff-non-petitioners No. 1, 2 & 4 are existing and from those windows and doors, they get light and air to their houses. It was further alleged that just adjoining to that 3 feet wide lane, there exists a 12 feet's wide public way. In the end of that public way, towards the eastern side, there exists the house of plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 3 and doors of the house of plaintiff-non-petitioners opened on 15 feet's wide public way. Towards the southern side of that public way, Plots No. 4,5 & 1 of defendant-petitioner are existing. It was also alleged that the defendant-petitioner has constructed a room in his plot No. 4 illegally convening three feet's wide public way and in addition to that 2-3 days prior to the filing of the suit, the defendant-petitioner has encroached upon 10 feet wide public way and has started illegal constructions. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed that the defendant-petitioner may be restrained from making further constructions over the public way as also 3 feet wide lane which was left by them for the purposes of light and air and he may also be directed to maintain the status quo. 3. The defendant-petitioner contested the application on the ground that he purchased the land from one Girivarsingh, who possessed considerable land. 3. The defendant-petitioner contested the application on the ground that he purchased the land from one Girivarsingh, who possessed considerable land. Girivasingh left the lane of the width of 15 feet's towards the north so that the residents of the colony may use it for enjoying their elementary rights. The defendant thus, denied that there was any land of the public way having a width of 15 feet's as alleged by the plaintiff-non-petitioners. 4. The learned Additional Civil Judge did not find-any prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff-non-petitioners on the ground that the plaintiffs could not produce any evidence or documents in support of their prima facie case. He also found discrepancies in the pleading of the plaintiffs. In this connection, the learned trial Court referred to the report of the Commissioner, according to which, the so-called public way has got eretic width. At some places, the width was found to be 12 feet's and at some places, it was found to be 10 or 15 feet's or 9 feet's. Hence, the learned Addl. Civil Judge dismissed the application for grant of temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff-non-petitioners vide his order dated 5.2.1997. 5. Against the above judgment dated 5.2.1997, the plaintiff-non-petitioners filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Jodhpur who transferred the same for decision to the Court of the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur. The learned Addl. District Judge in Para No. 10 of the judgment referred to two sale-deeds executed by Mangal Dass son of Santokhram in favour of the defendant-petitioner. He further (sic) that on page No. 3 of the sale deed, a way of 15 feet width has been shown towards the north. From the above, the learned appellate Court was prima faciely satisfied that a public way of the width of 15 feets was existing and this prima facie case is proved by the recitals made in the above mentioned two sale deeds. He, therefore, accepted the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 8.10.1995 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Jodhpur and issued a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-non-petitioners art against the defendant-petitioner restraining him from making any further constructions over the land shown by letters ABCD in the site plar. and from raising any obstructions to use that public way to anybody. 6. and from raising any obstructions to use that public way to anybody. 6. I have heard M/s. A.R. Mehta and N.K. Dadhich, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant-petitioner and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. 7. Mr. A.R. Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant-petitioner has referred to the order of the trial Court and submitted that the learned Addl. Civil Judge on the basis of the material before him did not find any prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs. His conclusion was a finding of fact. Thus, the learned appellate Court was not justified in setting aside the order dated 8.10.1995 passed by the learned Ad dl. Civil Judge No. 2, Jodhpur merely on the basis of the recitals made in the above mentioned two sale deeds. According to him, the above so called recitals made in the two sale deeds is not relevant as against the defendant petitioner and thus, the learned appellant Court has committed a grave jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant-petitioner and have also gone through the impugned orders of the Courts below In this case, the question which crops up for consideration is whether the defendant-petitioners are encroaching upon the public way. According to the plaintiffs the width of said public way is 15 feet and it is a public way. The defendant has also not denied the width of the way but according to him, this land was left only for the use of particular persons. In my opinion, the learned appellate Court has, very correctly referred to the recitals made in the sale deeds, which disclose a prima facie evidence that the above land having width of 15 feet's is of public way. In the cases where the Court is required to issue orders regarding temporary injunction, it must satisfy itself that the plaintiffs have got a prima facie case in their favour. It is not necessary that the evidence must be furnished by the plaintiffs. If the conclusions can be culled from the material available on the record, whether such material is produced either by the plaintiff or by the defendant if hardly matters the same maybe drawn in ascertaining that a prima facie case is made out. It is not necessary that the evidence must be furnished by the plaintiffs. If the conclusions can be culled from the material available on the record, whether such material is produced either by the plaintiff or by the defendant if hardly matters the same maybe drawn in ascertaining that a prima facie case is made out. In this view of the matter, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 5.2.1997 passed by the learned appellate Court. 9. In the result, I find no force in this revision petition and it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Revision dismissed. *******