ORDER 27.3.2003 — Heard. 2. The plaintiff in Title Suit No. 303 of 1999 of the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhubaneswar has preferred this revision as against the refusal of the prayer for temporary injunction by the Courts below in Misc. Case No. 358 of 1999 and Misc. Appeal no. 6/20 of 2000. Plaintiff’s case is that she is the owner of that property and in possession of the same and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the trespassers and they create dis¬turbance in her peaceful possession. Defendants have contested the suit and the misc. case. They have advanced the claims of title and possession on the basis of registered sale deed said to have been executed in their favour by the bona fide purchasers of the suit property from the parents of the plaintiff. The Courts below have considered that aspect while considering the application for temporary injunction. Learned Civil Judge record¬ed that the documents filed by the defendants/opposite party relating to mutation of the said land in favour of the defendant No. 1. Payment of rent by them in the recent past and the regis¬tered sale deeds are prima facie acceptable in proof of factum of possession in favour of the defendants. Apart from that, from the documents and contention of the parties the Courts below concur¬rently hold that defendant is in possession of the property and order of interim injunction will amount to order of eviction. Accordingly, both the Courts below did not find it to be a fit case for grant of temporary injunction in favour of the plain¬tiff. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that though he filed several documents in proof of his title and possession but the Courts below did not consider the same and merely relying on the documents filed by the defendants passed the impugned order and therefore the same suffer from perversity. 4. Normally such a conduct is not expected from a Court adjudicating a dispute or disposing of an interim application. On perusal of the LCR this Court finds that petitioner filed unau¬thenticate xerox copies of some documents whereas Opposite party filed original or authenticated copies of documents which they relied on. Hence, the Courts below are not to be blamed for not accepting such unauthenticated copies of documents, when correct¬ness and authenticity of that being not admitted by the Opposite party. Hence, the Courts below are not to be blamed for not accepting such unauthenticated copies of documents, when correct¬ness and authenticity of that being not admitted by the Opposite party. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner and the criti¬cism to the conduct of the Courts below is not well-founded. This Court thus does not find existence of perversity, as complained by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Courts below did not mention in the impugned order whether there exits a prima facie case, in whose favour the balance of convenience leans and whether or not the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury in the event of refusal of injunction. This Court does not find correctness in that criticism too because a bare perusal of the impugned order indicate that such factums were considered while considering petitioners prayer for temporary injunction. In that respect, mere non-user of the term’s prima facie case, balance of convenience’ and ‘irreparable loss or injury’ is not sufficient to render the impugned orders illegal or improper exercise of jurisdiction. As noted above, all such factums were considered by the Courts below to reject the prayer of petitioner for temporary injunction to prevent the opposite party to possess the suit property when there exist prima facie evidence that opposite party is in possession of the suit proper¬ty. 6. After perusal of the impugned orders and considering the aforesaid contention of the petitioner, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned orders. Thus, the Civil Revision stands dismissed. Send back the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Court below. Civ. Revision dismissed.