RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) ). THE present Appeal From Order is filed against the order rejecting the Exh. 5-application and vacating the relief which was granted ex parte. ( 2 ) ). HEARD Mr. Y. M. Thakkar, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Mahendra K. Patel, learned Advocate for the respondents. ( 3 ) ). PERUSED the impugned order in this appeal. It is clear from the impugned order that the learned Judge, after having discussed Point No. 1 in great detail, has recorded findings to the effect that,"i have given my thoughtful consideration to the circumstances. I have perused the record. It appears from the record that the property was originally running in the name of Vinzabhai Kanjibhai and after his death the property was transferred in the name of his sons Motiya as well as Tejiya. Said entry has been recorded on 11/01/51 and to the great surprise, the revenue authorities were pleased to record another entry in respect of the same property on the same day and the names of Motiya as well as Tejiya were deleted and the name of Madiya Kanji was substituted. It is alleged by the plntfs. that Madiya Kanji was not relatives of the plntfs. , but he was belonged to Village-Minakyar and his fathers name was not Kanjibhai but his fathers name was Kanyabhai Bhimabhai. It is also alleged that after the death of Kanyabhai Bhimabhai, Madiya Kanji has inherited the property. There is no any evidence produced by the defts. to contest the statement, therefore, there is a reason to believe that the circumstances leading to the substitution in the name of Motiya and Tejiya were full of suspicion. It is also satisfactory evidence that Madiya Kanji was belonged to another village and was the son of Kanya Bhima. Therefore, if any entry has been recorded in favour of such person, the entry cannot confer any right in the property and hence plntfs. have prima-facie case. In such circumstances, if injunction is not issued, the valuable right of the plntfs. would be jeopardised and, therefore, plntfs. need the help of the Court for the injunction order to protect their right. Therefore, both the points are decided in affirmative. "despite above findings, it is surprising that the learned Judge has refused to grant relief to the plaintiffs. In such circumstances, if injunction is not issued, the valuable right of the plntfs. would be jeopardised and, therefore, plntfs. need the help of the Court for the injunction order to protect their right. Therefore, both the points are decided in affirmative. "despite above findings, it is surprising that the learned Judge has refused to grant relief to the plaintiffs. Relevant extracts of Paragraph-9 read as under :"in spite of the fact that plntfs. have prima facie case and they have their valuable right to protect their title against present defts. , however, since the defts. have challenged the Order of the revenue authority setting aside the entry no. 312 recorded on 11/01/51, and the matter is still pending before the High Court. I would not like to grant the relief in favour of the plntfs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 4 ) ). IN view of what is discussed herein, it is crystal clear that the learned Judge has erred in not granting the injunction. Hence, this Appeal From Order is allowed. The order dated 8/06/2001 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (S. D.), Godhra below Exh. 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 175 of 1999 is quashed and set aside. Consequently, relief as prayed for in Exh. 5-application is granted. It will be open for the respondent herein to request for an early hearing of the suit, but such a request be made after the Special Civil Application is decided so that the same thing may not be repeated. ( 5 ) ). IN view of the main Appeal From Order being allowed, Civil Application No. 12759 of 2001 does not survive and the same is disposed of. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Direct Service is permitted. .