JUDGMENT 1. - The plaintiffs have filed this revision petition under section 115 CPC against the appellate order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Merta dated 21.3.1997 whereby the learned Civil Judge allowed the appeal filed by the defendants-non-petitioners and reversed the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Merta dated 9.7.1990. 2. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate against the defendants-non-petitioners for possession of the suit bada and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making construction over the said bada. The plaintiffs alleged that plaintiff no. 1 obtained patta in respect of the above bada from the Gram Panchayat on 16.11.1970. After the death of her husband, she started living with her son at Jodhpur.Ramdev is her husband's brother and the other two defendants are the sons of Ramdev. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that Ramdev requested plaintiff no. 1 for using the said plot and the latter agreed on account of the family relationship. It was averred by the plaintiff. that after some time the defendants dishonestly started making their own construction over the said bada. Plaintiff no. 1 requested the defendants not to do so but the latter did not pay any heed. She, therefore, filed the above suit. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiffs also filed an application u/O. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 CPC for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from making construction over the bada. 3. The defendants resisted the suit and the application on the ground that the suit bada has been in their possession and they also got a patta issued by the Tehsildar, Merta. They disputed the fact that any patta was issued to plaintiff no. 1 by the Gram Panchyat, Merta. Affidavits of the parties were also filed. 4. Learned trial Court, in view of the title evidence of the plaintiffs, found a prinza facie case in favour of the plaintiffs. He, therefore, issued the temporary injunction against the defendants as requested by the plaintiffs. 5. On appeal, the learned Civil Judge, after a critical examination of the proceedings taken by the Gram Panchayat in issuing the patta to plaintiff no. 1, came to the conclusion that the proceedings were irregular and created a doubt about the genuine,ness of the proceedings which culminated in the grant of patta to plaintiff no. 1. 5. On appeal, the learned Civil Judge, after a critical examination of the proceedings taken by the Gram Panchayat in issuing the patta to plaintiff no. 1, came to the conclusion that the proceedings were irregular and created a doubt about the genuine,ness of the proceedings which culminated in the grant of patta to plaintiff no. 1. It was also remarked by the learned appellate Court that it was highly unlikely that during the life time of her husband, the patta could be granted to plaintiff no. 1. He, therefore, preferred possession of the defendants as decisive in the case. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and vacated the stay order. He further accepted the undertaking given by the defendants that in case the suit was decreed against them, they would not lay any claim in respect of construction made by them. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the non-petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order of the learned appellate Court on the ground that while examining the Prima facie case of the plaintiffs, the learned appellate Court undertook critical examination of the proceedings taken by the Gram Panchayat in issuing the alleged patta to the plaintiff no. 1. He submitted that normally such local bodies do not understand the implication of taking immaculate proceedings for issue of a patta. The proceedings are, therefore, irregular. It was, therefore, not proper for him to have concluded that no patta has been issued by the Gram Panchayat. The plaintiffs have produced the file of Gram Panchayat according to which before issuing the patta, the Gram Panchayat took proceedings for the same. The plaintiffs were not in a position to join issue as regards the patta because it was a preliminary stage and normally the Court does not finally determine the validity or otherwise of a document. The Court examines the document only for the purpose of seeing whether a prima facie case is made out or not. If in an application u /O. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 CPC., the Court started finally determining the probative value of a document, great injustice will be done to the parties. The Court examines the document only for the purpose of seeing whether a prima facie case is made out or not. If in an application u /O. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 CPC., the Court started finally determining the probative value of a document, great injustice will be done to the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the defendants also claimed that the patta in respect of the above land was issued to them by Tehsildar, but strangely enough, the same was not produced and the learned appellate Court conveniently forgot this important fact. For want of production of such an important document, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the defendants. He also submitted that the jurisdiction of the appellate Court in such a matter is very limited. The order refusing or granting temporary injunction is a discretionary in character. The appellate Court should not, therefore, interfere with the order unless the same is perverse and has been passed in disregard of legal principles. He has placed reliance on the observations made in Smt. Vimla Devi v. Jag Bahadur, AIR 1977 Raj. 196 and RSEB v. Moolchand Jangid, 1993 (3) WLC (Raj.) 338 . 8. Learned counsel for the non-petitioners has supported the order of the learned appellate Court. He has submitted that the plaintiffs has claimed a Prima facie case on the basis of a patta issued by the Gram Panchayat. The learned appellate Court has correctly examined the proceedings which the Gram Panchayat took before issuing the patta and found several lacunae. The above lacunae were so manifest that it does not require any elaborate criticism of the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat. The appellate Court correctly found that the Gram Panchayat acted illegally and irregularly in issuing the patta to the plaintiff no. 1. The appellate Court has correctly remarked that when the husband of plaintiff no. 1. was alive, there was no necessity to issue the patta in the name of his wife. It has also created a doubt. The possession of the defendants was old one. There is no dispute about this fact. He also submitted that the learned appellate Court correctly accepted the above undertaking offered by the defendants in order to ensure that no injustice is done to the plaintiffs in case the suit was decreed. 9. I have considered the rival contentions. The possession of the defendants was old one. There is no dispute about this fact. He also submitted that the learned appellate Court correctly accepted the above undertaking offered by the defendants in order to ensure that no injustice is done to the plaintiffs in case the suit was decreed. 9. I have considered the rival contentions. A perusal of the appellate order shows that the learned Civil Judge undertook a very critical examination of the proceedings taken by the Gram Panchayat before issuing the patta. Now the question whether before issuing patta, the Gram Panchayat observed all the legal formalities or not is a serious question to be tried in the case. When the Court examines a Prima facie case of the plaintiff, the Court is not required to finally determine the validity of the document or its probative value. He has only to examine the document for a limited purpose as to whether a prima facie case is made out or not. The said patta, issued to the plaintiff no. 1, has not been cancelled so far. It is, therefore, subsisting. The learned appellate Court conveniently forgot to appreciate that the defendants also claimed title in themselves on the basis of a patta issued by the Tehsildar, Merta but the same was not produced. This is a material circumstance which ought to have been taken into consideration by the learned appellate Court. In my opinion, the patta issued by the Gram Panchayat to the plaintiff no. 1 shows the title of the plaintiffs particularly when the defendants, though claiming that a patta in respect of the above bada was issued to them by the Tehsildar, Merta, are not producing the same. The powers of the appellate Court in this regard are very limited and I may quote the observations made in Virtila Devi's case "The order refusing temporary injunction is of a discretionary character. Ordinarily Court of appeal will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial Court and substitute for it its own discretion. The interference with the discretionary order, however, may be justified if the lower Court acts arbitrarily or perversely, capriciously or in disregard of sound legal principles or without considering all the relevant record." 10. Ordinarily Court of appeal will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial Court and substitute for it its own discretion. The interference with the discretionary order, however, may be justified if the lower Court acts arbitrarily or perversely, capriciously or in disregard of sound legal principles or without considering all the relevant record." 10. For the above reasons, I hold that the learned appellate Court acceded its jurisdiction when it interfered with discretionary order passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Merta. 11. I, therefore, allow the revision petition, set aside the order of the learned appellate Court and restore that of the learned trial Court. No order as to the costs.Revision Dismissed. *******