JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 19.1.09 passed by the District Judge, Chittorgarh in Civil Misc. Appeal No.3/09, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs against the order dated 5.1.09 passed by the Civil Judge(J.D.), Chittorgarh rejecting the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ("CPC"), stands dismissed. 2. The petitioners/plaintiffs preferred a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction accompanied by an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction in respect of the 30 ft. wide road existing in the southern side of the petitioner's industrial establishment. 3. The petitioners/plaintiffs averred in the plaint that vide order dated 30.12.89 land measuring 1.1 bighas comprising khasra no.179/1 of village Manpura, was allotted in his favour for establishing an industry and a lease deed was also executed. It Was stated that at the time of execution of the lease deed, a map of the industry in question was approved by the Department of Industries wherein 30 ft. wide road is clearly shown in the southern side of the said property. However, the land adjoining the petitioner's industry including the land covered by said public way was allotted by the District Collector for establishing a primary Health Center and accordingly, the construction was undertaken. In these circumstances, since the said way was bound to be obstructed on account of proposed construction, the petitioner filed the application seeking temporary injunction in terms that during pendency of the suit, the status quo may be maintained regarding the disputed property. 4. The application was contested by the respondents/defendants by filing reply thereto. It was stated that the land has been allotted to the respondents/defendants on 99 years lease. The existence of no public way at the site as alleged by the petitioner/plaintiff was also denied. It was submitted that the map produced by the petitioners/plaintiffs is not approved by either Gram Panchayat or Department of Industries. 5. After due consideration the trial court arrived at the finding that the map sanctioned produced on record by the plaintiffs showing 30 ft. wide road does not create any right in their favour inasmuch as the Department of Industries has no authority to sanction the road on its own. 5. After due consideration the trial court arrived at the finding that the map sanctioned produced on record by the plaintiffs showing 30 ft. wide road does not create any right in their favour inasmuch as the Department of Industries has no authority to sanction the road on its own. The court observed that a Primary Health Centre is being established on the land allotted to the respondent, therefore, if the interim injunction prayed for is granted, it will cause great inconvenience to the village public and they will suffer irreparable loss. The findings arrived at by the trial court has been affirmed by the appellate court. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs that the courts below have failed to consider the controversy involved in correct perspective. It is submitted that sufficient material was placed on record by the petitioners to establish existence of 30 ft. wide public way in the southern side of the plot in question. Learned counsel submitted that the map produced on record was approved by the Department of Industries in the year 1984 which clearly shows the existence of the public way as alleged by the petitioners, therefore, the findings arrived at by the court below that no public way is in existence in the southern side of the property in question is ex facie perverse. Learned counsel submitted that if proposed construction is permitted to be raised it will obstruct the use of the said way by the petitioners/plaintiffs. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners/plaintiffs have strong prima facie case in their favour and in view of continuous user of the road by them, the balance of convenience is also in their favour. It is submitted that if the interim injunction prayed for is not granted then, the petitioners will be deprived of user of the road and thus,they are bound to suffer irreparable loss. However, on being asked by the court, it is fairly conceded by the learned counsel that the alleged map relied upon is only the map produced by the petitioners/plaintiffs before the Department of industries for sanctioning the construction to be raised on the plot allotted. it is submitted that no map was attached with the lease deed executed in respect of the plot in question allotted in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs. 7. it is submitted that no map was attached with the lease deed executed in respect of the plot in question allotted in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs. 7. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submitted that the Department of Industries had no authority whatsoever to sanction the public way adjoining to the land allotted to the petitioners/plaintiffs. Learned counsel submitted that the land in question which is alleged to be used as public way was never set apart for the said purpose by the State Government and there is no revenue record showing the existence of the road at the site. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, no approach road as alleged by the petitioners/plaintiffs is existing at the site. It is submitted that the concurrent findings arrived at by the court below after due appreciation of the evidence on record cannot be said to be perverse so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. 9. It is settled law that in the matter of the temporary injunction,the jurisdiction of the appellate court is not co-extensive with that of the trial court granting or refusing injunction only when it is satisfied that (i) the trial court has acted contrary to law or (ii) has acted arbitrarily, or (iii) that the finding of trial court regarding the three requirements of grant of injunction are perverse or capricious or (iv) that there has been a misreading of the pleadings of evidence.(vide RSEB v. Mool Chand Jangir, 1993(3) WLC 338 .) 10. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that all the relevant aspects of the matter have been considered by the learned trial court so also by the appellate court and the findings arrived at cannot be said to be perverse or capricious. Admittedly, no map was attached to the lease deed showing the existence of the public way in the southern side of the plot allotted to the petitioners/plaintiffs by the Department of Industries, Government of Rajasthan, Merely, because the man submitted by the petitioners before the Department of Industries, Government of Rajasthan, showing 30 ft. Admittedly, no map was attached to the lease deed showing the existence of the public way in the southern side of the plot allotted to the petitioners/plaintiffs by the Department of Industries, Government of Rajasthan, Merely, because the man submitted by the petitioners before the Department of Industries, Government of Rajasthan, showing 30 ft. wide road In southern side of their plot on their own, has been sanctioned by the Department of Industries, it does not create any right in favour of the petitioners to claim the existence of the road as alleged. Admittedly, no revenue record showing the existence of the public way was produced before the trial court. In this view of the matter, in considered opinion of this court, the concurrent findings arrived at by the courts below do not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******