JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed a suit for declaration in which he has mentioned that he is an adopted son of Dhapu and one Srichand for about 21 years and also claimed permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit an application for temporary injunction was filed claiming that his right as adopted son in the disputed property should not be interferred with by the defendants. The trial Court has granted injunction in that form. In an appeal the lower Court has set aside the order of the trial Court holding that the petitioner-plaintiff has failed to prove prima facie case of his adoption and having entered in possession of the property. The petitioner not being in to possession, there will not be any irreparable injury not the balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner. The findings have been arrived at by the appellate court on appreciation of the material placed on record. When the appellate court has reached to the conclusion that the petitioner-plaintiff has failed to prove prima facie case and that there is no 15 balance of convenience or irreparable injury to him, the injunction order was rightly refused. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the order of the trial Court and the appellate court. On a perusal of the order passed by the first appellate court, I am of the view that the order has been passed on due appreciation of the material placed on record in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in the Court. The finding of fact arrived at by the appellate court does not call for any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction vested in this Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The vision petition is dismissedRevision Dismissed. *******