JUDGMENT 1. - This revision has been directed against the order of learned Additional District Judge dated 25.5.1999. 2. Briefly stated, Bashir Ahmed filed a suit against Javed Mohd., Hasan Khan and Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur for permanent injunction, declaration of licence as void ab-initio and for dispossession with the averments that the Urban Improvement Trust approved a plan to raise a shopping centre in Bada Bazar, Jodhpur. Plaintiff was in possession of shops No. 131 and 132 where he has established his office and business. Each of the shops was 15' x 10' having a verandah of 8' x 10'. An open space was left on the western side of shop No. 131 and thereafter series of shops were constructed, there were licences of shops No. 131 and 132 and the licence of shop No. 132 was issued in the name of G.L. Khanna which also has a site plan. This site plan is in possession of the plaintiff. In continuation of shop No. 132 on the eastern side, shops of Hasan Khan are situated over which is residential house of Hasan Khan was constructed. It is further averred that Hasan Khan obstructed the verandah of plaintiff's shop No. 132. Plaintiff sent some letters to the Urban Improvement Trust complaining that Hasan Khan had obstructed the open land near shop No. 132 but the Urban Improvement Trust did not pay any heed. Thereafter the plaintiff filed a suit that the land which was trespassed upon by Hasan Khan be got vacated from him. In the written statement of that suit Hasan Khan pleaded that the said open land was a part of plot No. 136 whose licensee was Javed Mohd. Plaintiff had constructed his residential house in plot No. 131 and shop of plot No. 132 and a residential house on the shops some time in the year 1977 where he was residing. He had raised a balcony. It was further averred that the plaintiff was entitled to keep the land as open place on the southern side of his plot No. 132 as the same was lying open since 1977. It was further averred that at verandah of plot No. 136 is constructed beyond plot No. 132, it will cover more than half of share of the plaintiff which will cause inconvenience to him. It was further averred that at verandah of plot No. 136 is constructed beyond plot No. 132, it will cover more than half of share of the plaintiff which will cause inconvenience to him. Defendant No. 2 had not followed condition No. 2 of his licence, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to maintain his easementary rights. It was prayed in the suit that the defendants may be restrained not to raise construction beyond verandah of plot No. 132 and to restrain them from causing damage to the balcony of the plaintiff and other portion of his house. A decree for removal of `paths' etc. from the open land has also been sought. Application for temporary injunction was moved in which all the averments, as stated above, were made. 3. The case of the Urban Improvement Trust is that the plaintiff petitioner had based his petition on false pretext as the scheme where property is situated is a commercial complex which was approved by the State Government many years ago and the plaintiff was not entitled to change the plan at all. The disputed land was a part of plot No. 136 which was allotted. Verandah of 8 feet in plot No. 136 was originally planned in the original plan and it was situated beyond plot Nos. 132 and 131. It was further averred that the plot No. 132 did not belong to the petitioner plaintiff and hence there was no prima facie case of the plaintiff and he was not the owner of the plot. Defendants 2 and 3 were raising construction of his shop No. 136 on the said plot where they had every right to construct. It was the plaintiff who himself raised illegal constructions of plots 131 and 132 and had raised his balcony towards plot No. 136 in the size of 2 feet 6 inches. This was an illegal construction which he cannot retain. He was not authorised to change the original plan. The point of balance of convenience and irreparable loss or of prima facie case were not in favour of the plaintiff. 4. Defendant No. 2 Javed Mohd.'s case before the trial court was that the plaintiff petitioner himself had not obtained any sanction to raise construction of plots Nos. He was not authorised to change the original plan. The point of balance of convenience and irreparable loss or of prima facie case were not in favour of the plaintiff. 4. Defendant No. 2 Javed Mohd.'s case before the trial court was that the plaintiff petitioner himself had not obtained any sanction to raise construction of plots Nos. 131 and 132 and has raised construction against the main plan and had also raised a balcony projecting towards plot No. 136 belonging to the defendants. The plaintiff had filed his suit on the basis of false averments in order to save the balcony which has been illegally constructed by him. Plot No. 136 was allotted to this defendant and his father Tayyab Mohd. who has not been made a party in the suit The earlier suit which was filed by the plaintiff was withdrawn by him and the permission to file another suit was not granted by the court. Hence this suit was not maintainable. Defendants were raising construction on the plot according to the plan approved by the Urban Improvement Trust. The plaintiff had no prima facie case, no balance of convenience was in favour and no irreparable loss was caused to him. A counter application was submitted in which it was prayed that the plaintiff be asked to remove the balcony which he had illegally constructed and he may be restrained from interfering in the construction of the defendants. 5. Defendant No. 3 submitted his reply that the plaintiff wanted to harass him and, therefore, he was made a party. His case was that plot No. 136 was not allotted to him neither he was raising any construction on this plot. It was defendant No. 2 who was raising construction on the plot No. 136. 6. Learned trial court had allowed the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and injunct the defendant not to raise construction on the land situated on southern side of plot No. 132. The counter application submitted by the defendant No. 2 was dismissed. Against this order, respondent Javed Mohd. went in appeal which was decided by learned Additional District Judge on 25.5.1999 by the impugned order who held that the order of learned trial Judge was not according to law and hence set it aside. The counter application submitted by the defendant No. 2 was dismissed. Against this order, respondent Javed Mohd. went in appeal which was decided by learned Additional District Judge on 25.5.1999 by the impugned order who held that the order of learned trial Judge was not according to law and hence set it aside. He allowed the appeal, set-aside the order of learned trial Judge, allowed the counter claim and ordered that since the construction of plot No. 136 was being done as per plan of the Urban Improvement Trust, plaintiff will not interfere in the construction and that he will remove the balcony which he had constructed illegally. The position, as stated before me, is that the balcony has been removed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties in detail and have gone through the orders of the learned trial Judge as well as of the appellate Judge very minutely. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of learned appellate Judge suffers from infirmities and that though there was a prima-facie case proved by him the appellate court while not agreeing with the trial Judge committed error of Jurisdiction. He also submitted that the observations of the learned appellate Judge on page No. 10 that the plaintiff had no right to file suit, has caused a serious prejudice and, therefore, the order of the learned appellate Judge should be set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order of learned appellate Judge. 10. Learned appellate Judge had framed four questions on page No. 9 of his judgment in which he has elaborately discussed the whole case of both the parties, the evidence led by them and then came to the conclusion that the plaintiff petitioner had no prima facie case. The primary question before me was whether the plaintiff had any right to sue? Counsel for the petitioner submitted that maintainability of the suit cannot be gone into at the stage of temporary injunction. When there is law to the effect that question of maintainability of suit is to be decided in the main suit, it hardly matters if the learned appellate Judge has made some observations in his judgment reversing the order of temporary injunction. When there is law to the effect that question of maintainability of suit is to be decided in the main suit, it hardly matters if the learned appellate Judge has made some observations in his judgment reversing the order of temporary injunction. There is number of citations relied by the learned counsel on this point and I agree that the question of maintainability of the suit will be decided at the appropriate stage in the suit. Therefore, the trial court will not be prejudiced by the observations made in the order of the learned appellate Judge. 11. The question of prima-facie case was looked by the learned appellate Judge from the right angle as the plaintiff does not have any documentary evidence in his favour. An equitable relief can be granted to a person who comes with clean hands. Plaintiff has not disclosed in his plaint nor in the application as to how he became the owner of plot Nos. 131 and 132. Counsel submitted that the plaintiff had the possessory title. Even if it is to be taken to be correct, as plot No. 132 was allotted not to the plaintiff but to some Mr. Malhotra, even then plaintiff raised construction on the plots without any approved plan of the Urban Improvement Trust. He projected balcony which ultimately he had to demolish under the order of learned appellate Judge. It is also a fact that plot No. 136 was allotted in the joint name of Tayyab Mohd. and Javed Mohd. but Tayyab Mohd. has not been made a party. The observations of learned appellate Judge that the suit might not be maintainable for non-joinder of the parties, is to be looked into in the suit itself and even if the question was raised in the case of temporary injunction, it did not matter much. However, the question of prima-facie case is definitely to be seen by the appellate Judge. Of course he is to be slow in interfering the discretionary order of the trial Judge in view of Smt. Vimla Devi v. Jang Bahadur, AIR 1977 Rajasthan page 196. From the judgment of the learned appellate Judge, I do not find any error when he reversed the order of learned trial Judge which was not based on the sound reasonings. From the judgment of the learned appellate Judge, I do not find any error when he reversed the order of learned trial Judge which was not based on the sound reasonings. Admittedly a relief of temporary injunction is an equitable relief and when the plaintiff himself was not doing equity with the defendants as he had raised construction on the plots which he says that are in his possession since 1977 or so, he was not entitled for an equitable relief. The land of plot No. 136 open chowk, is not correct as this plot was allotted to Tayyab Mohd. and his son Javed Mohd. where construction was being raised according to the plan of the Urban Improvement Trust over which the plaintiff petitioner had no right or title and no right to injunct the respondents. 12. The Urban Improvement Trust had approved the plan on 13.5.1975. Different plots were allotted to different person as per plan and licences were issued accordingly. It was the original plan according to which construction was being raised on plot No. 136 over which the plaintiff, have no right to injunct anybody. The plaintiff had filed a civil suit on earlier occasion subject matter of which was the same property and the suit sought for the same relief but the suit was withdrawn and no permission was granted to file a fresh suit. In view of these facts. the observations of the learned Additional District Judge in the impugned order can be said to be proper but the point about maintainability of the suit will be decided at the proper stage in the suit itself. 13. After having gone through the order of learned appellate Judge, I am of the view that he has not committed any jurisdictional error by reversing the order of learned trial Judge. The plaintiff petitioner did not have a prima-facie case nor the point of balance of convenience lie in his favour and no irreparable loss was going to be caused to him by construction on plot No. 136 by the defendants respondents. 14. Consequently, there is no force in this revision petition. It is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.Revision dismissed. *******