JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The plaintiffs/petitioners are aggrieved against the orders passed by the two courts below on plaintiffs' application for grant of injunction. 3. It appears by the impugned order that the first appellate court substantially maintained status quo and also secured the security of the property in dispute which according to the plaintiffs is the property of the Temple and the defendants/ respondents describe it as the property of Temple and Math. The contention of the defendants was that it is a public property. 4. Both the courts below carefully considered all the aspects of the matter in detail and gave cogent reasons in the impugned orders. 5. The petitioners' grievance that by grant of permission to repair the wall of the property in dispute to the defendants, the defendants will have equity or may claim some benefits. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the permission to alter the property cannot be granted in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot v. Baldev Dass reported in (2004) 8 SCC 488 . The said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case because none of the judgments say that no arrangement can be made for protecting the property involved in the suit. The first appellate court considered this aspect of the matter and made the position more clear than the position which was in view of the trial court's order. The first appellate court made it clear that the defendants will be free to repair the boundary wall of the property in dispute that too only for the purpose of security of the property in dispute. 6. Another contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the first appellate court committed error of law in reversing the finding of the trial court so far as the right of sewa puja is concerned. It appears that the defendants' contention was that they were performing sewa puja. This aspect was considered by the first appellate court, therefore, this finding of fact deserves no interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. In view of the above, this writ petition having no force, is hereby dismissed.Writ petition dismissed. *******