JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties on the fourth application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for grant of interim relief. 2. The appellants in the above stay application have prayed that they may be. allowed to hold 'quawali' and other connected religious programme in Khasra No. 1038 from 8.11.2006 to 12.11.2006 and the respondents may be restrained from interfering in any manner in organising quawali, functions and other connected activities. 3. It appears that in all three suits were filed. Two suits bearing No. 96/82 and 59/86 were filed by Gulam Naseer and one suit bearing No. 96/95 was filed by Pir Gulam Jilani in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Fatehpur. All these three suits were tried together and decided by a common judgment and decree dated 17.4.2003. Appellant Pir Gulam Jilani had filed suit for permanent injunction, with a prayer that defendants be restrained from interfering him from discharging the functions of Sajjadanasin of Dargah. The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 17.4.2003 decreed the suits of plaintiff Gulam Naseer holding that plaintiff is legally appointed Sajjadanasin and Mutwalli of Dargah and dismissed the suit filed by appellant Pir Gulam Jilani. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 17.4.2003 passed by the learned trial Court, the appellants preferred three appeals in the Court of learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Sikar. The learned appellate Court, after hearing counsel for the parties upheld the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed all the three appeals of the appellants with costs vide judgment and decree dated 4.9.2004. 5. Aggrieved by the judgments of the trial Court and that of the appellate Court, the appellants have now preferred 3 second appeals in this Court. 6. Mr. Mathur, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted a list of the orders passed by this Court and the subordinate Courts to show that during the period from 1997 to 2003 the Courts have granted permission to the appellants to hold Quawali in Khasra No. 1038 with certain restrictions and on this premise vehemently contended the appellants are entitled to hold quawali in Khasra No. 1038, which is situated out side Dargah. 7. Per contra, Mr. 7. Per contra, Mr. R.K. Agarwal, appearing for plaintiff respondent Gulam Naseer has relied upon a decision of this Court in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 657/1986 decided on 28.10.1988 and reported in RLW 1988(2) 260. The revision petition was filed by plaintiff Peer Gulam Naseer against the order dated 28.8.1986 by which the learned Civil Judge, Neem-ka-thana had reversed the order dated 3.12.1982 passed by the learned Munsiff allowing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff along with his suit, thereby granting injunction in favour of plaintiff petitioner restraining the defendant-non-petitioners (appellants in the present appeal) not to interfere in the religious duties to be performed by the plaintiff-petitioner like sitting over Gaddi, recite 'Kubbalis', to put 'Chadar' etc. This Court after hearing the parties allowed the revision petition of the plaintiff petitioner, set aside the order dated 28.8.1986 passed by the Civil Judge and maintained the order dated 3.12.1982 passed by the trial Court. 8. Learned counsel further further contended that after decision in appeals by the appellate Court, no permission was granted to the appellants to recite 'qavalli'. According to him, plaintiff respondent Peer Gulam Naseer is the legally appointed Sajjadanasin and all religious functions including 'Qavalli' are being organised in side Dargah and the appellants are always free to join those religious functions/ceremonies in the Dargah itself and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to permit them to recite 'Qavalli' etc. in khasra No. 1038 situated out side Dargah. 9. Lastly, Mr. Agarwal contended that the land bearing Khasra No. 1038 has already been given on rent to various persons through an agreement, on certain terms and conditions, for the purposes of installing shops etc. during the period of 'Urs' and as such the land for which permission to recite Qavalli is sought for is at present not vacant. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that the learned trial Court has declared defendant respondent Peer Gulam Naseer as 'Sajjadanasin' of Dargah Hazrat Qwaza Haji Mohammed Naramuddin at Fatehpur Shekhawati and all religious ceremonies including recital of 'gavalli' are being performed in the Dargah premises under his directions and supervision and all the murdis and deciples including appellant applicant Gulam Jilanee is free to join the religious ceremonies which are being performed in Dargah itself. 11. 11. Temporary injunction can be granted where any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree or the defendant threatens to dispossess or otherwise cause injury in relation to any property. in dispute in the suit. The contents mentioned in the fourth application for grant of temporary injunction no where reflect that the property in dispute in the suit is in danger of being waisted, damaged or alienated or that the appellant applicant is threatened to be dispossessed by the non-applicant respondent. In my considered view, since primary conditions to issue temporary injunction are not fulfilled, there is hardly any justification to grant any relief to the appellant applicant and his murid in the nature of interim relief. Even refusal of permission to the appellant applicant Peer Gulam Jilanee and others to recite 'gavalli' on the land bearing Khasra No. 1038 situated out side Dargah shall not result in any substantial loss, inasmuch as all religious functions /ceremonies are being performed in the Dargah by Sajjadanasin who is respondent in the present appeal.It also need to mentioned that after decision in the appeals by the appellate Court in the year 2003, no such permission was accorded to the appellant applicant or his murids. 12. Thus, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not consider it just and proper and in the interest of justice to accept the prayer made by the appellant applicant in the fourth stay application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, the fourth stay application having no substance is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly.Application Dismissed. *******