JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition is directed against the impugned order of the trial Court dated 21.7.2008 whereby the learned trial Court granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff- respondent Smt. Sita Devi in civil suit No.27/2008 filed for seeking permanent injunction against the present - defendant - petitioner. The appeal against that order filed by the present petitioner - defendant also came to be rejected by the appellate Court by order dated 25.7.2008. Aggrieved of these two orders, the petitioner - defendant has approached this Court by way of present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner - defendant relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and ors. v. Prem Chand Premi and another reported in 2005(13) SCC 505 and this Court's judgment in the cases of Vinay Kumar v. Devi Lal and ors. Reported in 2006 WLC (UC) 483 and Chief General Manager, State Bank of India and ors. v. Shri Brij Mohan Shukla reported in 2000(2) WLC (Raj.) 347 , has submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in granting the relief in the nature of temporary injunction in the same form as was sought as main relief in the civil suit itself and the learned trial Court could not have passed an order beyond the status quo order and therefore, has erred in passing the said temporary injunction even permitting the construction to be raised by the plaintiff over the disputed property over which the present petitioner - defendant claimed right as mortgagee. 4. Having heard the learned counsel, this Court finds no force in this writ petition because it always depends upon the facts of each case as to what nature of temporary injunction should be granted in a suit for permanent injunction. 4. Having heard the learned counsel, this Court finds no force in this writ petition because it always depends upon the facts of each case as to what nature of temporary injunction should be granted in a suit for permanent injunction. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra) pertains to a case relating to service law in which by interim order promotion granted to certain persons was challenged and since by interim order, the High Court had granted the following relief ; " if the respondents are ultimately successful in their writ petition, they will be granted retrospective seniority based upon the relevant rules which might be held to be applicable.", the Hon'ble Apex Court found that such an interim order could not have been granted. This is absolutely distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 5. Similarly in the case of Vinay Kumar (supra) where the dispute related to boundaries of plots and temporary injunction was refused, this Court found that status quo order ought to have been passed by the learned trial Court. Similarly in the case of Chief General Manager, State Bank of India (supra), the learned trial Court had granted temporary injunction in mandatory form directing the defendant - petitioner Bank to sanction the loan in the sum of Rs.2,40,000/- to the plaintiff - respondent. The facts of these two cases are also clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 6. As already observed, since it was a suit for permanent injunction seeking injunction against the defendant that he should not interfere with the property of the plaintiff in any manner, the temporary injunction granted by the learned trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case is not found to be unjustified. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******