JUDGMENT 1. - Ram Vilas, plaintiff-non-petitioner, filed a suit for injunction in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) with the allegations that in the north of this house there existed old "Kachcha" latrine and bathroom and for the purposes of sanitation and hygienic necessities he built "pakka" latrine and bathroom at the very site but the Panchayat Officers as also the present petitioners wanted to demolish them, whereupon he had to approach the Civil Court for protection of his right. Alongwith the plaint he had filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code seeking ad-interim temporary injunction. The learned trial Court declined to issue the ad-interim injunction, but in appeal the learned appellate Court held that there existed a prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiff-non petitioner, that he would be subjected to irreparable loss if the interim relief is not granted to him and that balance of convenience also lies in issuing an ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff-non petitioner. Aggrieved by such order, made by the learned appellate Court, Hazari Lal and Moti Lal, petitioners, who were the defendants in the suit, have approached in this Court in revision under section 115 CPC. 2. When the present matter was taken up for hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner Ram Vilas raised preliminary objection to the effect that the petitioners have no locus standi in the present matter as they were not directly effected by the impugned order. This preliminary objection is rejected on the obvious ground that the plaintiff-non-petitioner had himself arrayed the present petitioners as parties to the suit. Moreover the said petitioners could have placed their grievance against the order issued by the learned appellate Court this Court. 3. On merits the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the plaintiff-non-petitioner Ramvilas was in unauthorised and unlawful possession of a public land whereupon he had constructed a latrine and bathroom causing great inconvenience to the public at large in general and to the petitioners in particular. It was submitted that since the plaintiff-non-petitioner was a trespasser he was not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction from a Court of law. It was submitted that since the plaintiff-non-petitioner was a trespasser he was not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction from a Court of law. As against it the learned counsel for the plaintiff-non- petitioner Ramvilas urged that the plaintiff-non-petitioner and other members of his family had been in possession of the disputed land for over 40 years and that earlier there was a "kachcha" latrine on the disputed land and thereafter he had simply raised "pakka" construction on the same site. It was further pointed out that in order to solve all desputes relating to the use of the disputed land, the plaintiff-non-petitioner had even deposited some amount with the Panchayat for getting the same allotted to him. The learned counsel thus submitted that since the appellate Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it had chosen to exercise its discretionary power in a particular way, this Court, setting in revision under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code should not interfere with such exercise by the appellate Court. 4. I have gone through the detailed order as made by the Courts below. The facts appearing from the material placed before me are that a ten feet wide "pakka" road passes in the north of the houses of the parties. The house of Hazarilal and Motilal, defendant-petitioners, facing west, situates in the south of this road. Similarly the house of Ramvilas plaintiff-non-petitioner, facing north, situates on the same road. However, there appears to be piece of land in between the "pakka" road and the northern wall of the house of Ramvilas plaintiff-non-petitioner, Adjoining to the northern wall of Ramvilas plaintiff-non-petitioner there is 'chabutara' and adjoining the 'chabutara' the latrine and bathroom had been constructed. The case of Ramvilas plaintiff-non-petitioner was that all along from the days of his ancestors the said piece of land was being used by him and his ancestors and that there was a "kachcha" latrine and bathroom which was demolished and in its place a "pakka" latrine and bathroom were constructed. His further case is that the construction of the latrine and bathroom was away from the house of the defendant-petitioners Hazarilal and Motilal and caused no inconvenience to them. 5. His further case is that the construction of the latrine and bathroom was away from the house of the defendant-petitioners Hazarilal and Motilal and caused no inconvenience to them. 5. At this stage it was pointed out that when the Panchayat authorities had investigated into the dispute between the parties, it was found that Ramvilas plaintiff-non-petitioner had raised unauthorised construction on the public land and, therefore, such unauthorised construction was liable to be removed. Ramvilas, plaintiff-nonpetitioner, appears to have failed not only before the authorities under the Panchayat Raj Act but also before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) and Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Such fact brings it out clearly that since the plaintiff-non-petitioner had raised a debatable issue in his suit and as found by the learned appellate Court, such dispute had been raised in good faith, it was necessary to investigate into the merits of such dispute. It is settled law that serious issues of facts or law may make a prima-facie case for further inquiry into the grievances of the parties. Under such circumstances the learned appellate Court cannot be said to have exceeded in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him or to have exercised such jurisdiction with material irregularity. 6. The learned appellate Court has further found that be allowing the construction to remain as it is, no irreparable loss is likely to be caused to the defendant-petitioners. But on the other hand if the interim injunction is not issued and the construction is removed during the pendency of the suit it may cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff-non-petitioner. The facts, as stated above, appear to be supporting the findings of the learned appellate Court. The appellate Court has further found that the balance of convenience also lies in restraining the demolition of the latrine and bathroom which have already been constructed and cause no disturbance to others. The documents shown to me in the course of hearing go to show that the constructed latrine and bathroom exist on the piece of land that lies in the north between the house of he plaintiff-non-petitioner and the "pakka" public road. 7. In view of all the facts and circumstances of the case. I do not think that the learned appellate Court has exercised his discretion in an arbitrary manner. 7. In view of all the facts and circumstances of the case. I do not think that the learned appellate Court has exercised his discretion in an arbitrary manner. He appears to have exercised such jurisdiction judicially and judiciously after having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, I find no force in this revision petition. It is dismissed accordingly.Petition dismissed. *******