Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 104, read with Order 41 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, order dated 6.10.2010 passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 31/10 passed by Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Udaipur is under challenge, whereby, learned Civil Court rejected the application filed by the plaintiff-appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a civil suit initially in the Court of District Judge, Udaipur, which was later on transferred to Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Udaipur for trial. In the suit, the plaintiff-appellant claimed a sum of Rs. 3,43,61,178/-. The said claim was made on the ground that as per terms and conditions arrived at in between the plaintiff and defendant-respondent, the plaintiff-appellant had done job work of preparing gitti at the crasher plant established by the respondent company at the opposite side of petrol pump at village Girwa. As per the plaintiff's case, for doing the said job work over the crashing plant, the appellant had replaced the requisite implements, parts and spare parts as per the instructions of the defendant-respondent, upon which, the aforesaid sum was spent by him. For recovery of the said amount, the suit was filed. 3. The case of the plaintiff-appellant is that the defendant-respondent is bent upon to sell the crasher plant to some other person with ill intention to defeat and render ineffective/infructuous the decree which may be passed in the suit. It is also stated in the plaint that the defendant-respondent no property within the jurisdiction of the Court except the aforesaid property, therefore, in the interest of justice, he prayed for temporary injunction by way of filing an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C. read with Section 151, C.P.C. in the suit filed by him and made a prayer that respondent-defendant may be restrained from shifting the crasher plant elsewhere during the pendency of the suit. In the suit, it was also apprehended that respondent-defendant contacting parties for sale of the said crasher and slowly started shifting plant and other machinery from the site, therefore, according to the plaintiff-appellant, it was felt necessary to file application for temporary injunction. 4. The defendant-respondent filed reply to the application before the civil Court and denied all the contentions made in the temporary injunction application. 5. 4. The defendant-respondent filed reply to the application before the civil Court and denied all the contentions made in the temporary injunction application. 5. The trial Court after hearing both the parties rejected the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C. vide the impugned order dated 6.10.2010. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred this miscellaneous appeal for quashing order dated 6.10.2010 passed by Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 31/10 and prayed that the prayer made in the temporary injunction application may be allowed. 6. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the trial Court has gravely erred in rejecting the temporary injunction application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2, CPC because the finding given by the civil Court is not based upon sound reasons. Further, it is submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in law in coming to the conclusion that the appellant has no prima facie case in his favour. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the defendant-respondent has admitted the rate of job work as Rs. 123/- per tonne, therefore, there is huge amount due against the defendant-respondent and this fact has been ignored by the trial Court while refusing the temporary injunction against the respondent. 7. It is also argued that another application was also filed by the plaintiff before the civil Court under Order 38 Rule 5, read with Section 151, C.P.C. and, that, too, was dismissed on 6.10.2010 which has been challenged by way of filing writ petition before this Court. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant that the trial Court has decided the temporary injunction application as if the Court was deciding the suit itself. Learned trial Court was under obligation to consider the prima facie case only at the initial stage but the trial Court has entered in the matter thoroughly, therefore, at the time of deciding the application the fact of filing and spending huge court-fee for claim has also been taken into consideration. 8. Learned trial Court was under obligation to consider the prima facie case only at the initial stage but the trial Court has entered in the matter thoroughly, therefore, at the time of deciding the application the fact of filing and spending huge court-fee for claim has also been taken into consideration. 8. Further, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court was under obligation to consider the fact that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant-respondent was taking action for transferring the crasher plant elsewhere only to deprive the appellant from the fruits of the decree which may be ultimately passed in the suit. Upon perusal of the impugned order dated 6.10.2010, it will reveal that the trial Court has virtually decided the suit without trial, therefore, the finding with regard to prima facie case deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the balance of convenience and question of irreparable loss also stand in favour of the appellant because in the event of decreeing the suit by the civil Court, it will not be possible for the plaintiff-appellant to execute the decree if crasher plant is shifted away from the jurisdiction of the civil Court. The order with regard to deciding the question of balance of convenience and irreparable loss is totally erroneous because the trial Court has proceeded on the basis of irrelevant considerations. In this view of the matter, it is prayed that the order dated 6.10.2010 may be quashed. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that if temporary injunction as prayed for by the appellant is not granted, then, the entire decree that may be passed by the trial Court shall be rendered infructuous and ineffective, therefore, in the interest of justice, the order for restraining the respondent from shifting the crasher plant is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Joshi, appearing on behalf of the respondent-defendant vehemently argued that the trial Court has not committed any error while rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C., read with Section 151, C.P.C. vide order dated 6.10.2010. 11. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Joshi, appearing on behalf of the respondent-defendant vehemently argued that the trial Court has not committed any error while rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C., read with Section 151, C.P.C. vide order dated 6.10.2010. Argument of learned counsel for the respondent company is that the crasher plant, for which, the prayer has been made by the plaintiff that it should not be shifted from the present place of installation was established upon rented land temporarily for executing the particular work by the company. The company is a very big company having construction work including road construction work in whole of the country and it is necessary to shift the crasher plant after completion of the work at a particular place. 12. Further, it is pointed out that whatever bill was produced till 31.1.2010 for payment, the respondent company had paid the said amount to the plaintiff which is admitted by plaintiff in his averment made in para 8 of the suit itself. It is also submitted in the detailed reply to the suit and application that no written agreement or contract for any terms and conditions is on the record nor any specific averment has been made in the suit to prove the fact that any contract agreement was written for the purpose of terms and conditions in between the parties. The suit in question has been filed on concocted and fabricated grounds without disclosing date and place. Further, an application under Order 38 Rule 5, C.P.C. have also been filed any reply to the said application has already been filed by the respondent company. The suit in question has been filed on concocted and fabricated grounds without disclosing date and place. Further, an application under Order 38 Rule 5, C.P.C. have also been filed any reply to the said application has already been filed by the respondent company. The trial Court after taking into consideration the reply filed in the temporary injunction application as well as application filed under Order 38 Rule 5, C.P.C., passed two orders on 6.10.2010 separately and rejected both the applications while holding that no prima facie case is made out for granting temporary injunction application, so also, balance of convenience and question of irreparable loss lie in favour of the defendant-respondent rather than the appellant because the respondent company is construction company executing construction work all over the country and, for execution of the work, temporary crasher plant is required to be installed at the site and, for the same, the company is taking the land on rent and, after completion of the work, the respondent company is required to hand over vacant possession of the rented land. In this case also, the work for which the crasher plant was installed had already been completed in the month of August 2009 and, therefore, last bill was paid to the plaintiff on 31.1.2010 and amount of the said bill has already been paid which is evident from the averments made by the plaintiff in para 8 of the plaint. Learned trial Court has not committed any error while rejecting the application for temporary injunction vide impugned order dated 6.10.2010. 13. After hearing arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, I have perused the order impugned and considered the material on record. 14. Upon pleadings, it appears that the respondent company is executing construction work all over the country and this fact is not disputed by the appellant-plaintiff. It is also not disputed after filing reply by the respondent company that the crasher plant was installed temporarily till executing the work in hand, admittedly, the crasher plant was installed to execute particular work and that work was completed by the respondent company in the month of August, 2009. It is also not disputed after filing reply by the respondent company that the crasher plant was installed temporarily till executing the work in hand, admittedly, the crasher plant was installed to execute particular work and that work was completed by the respondent company in the month of August, 2009. In para 8 of the plaint, there is specific averment made by plaintiff-appellant that till 31.1.2010 various bills were produced and payment of all those bills were made by the company and, now, this suit has been filed on the ground that job work was given at the rate of 68/- per tonne and other expenses were to be paid separately but in the reply respondent company stated that complete job work was given to the plaintiff-appellant at the rate of 123/- per tonne which is not in dispute because all the bills were submitted on the basis of the rate of Rs. 123/- per tonne and all the payments were made as per the bills submitted by the appellant till 31.1.2010; and, further, it is specifically stated in the reply that no written contract or terms and conditions were arrived at in between the parties; meaning thereby, the suit has been filed only on the basis of concocted pleas and without any basis of any written agreement or any other document with regard to terms and conditions. Therefore, the learned civil Court gave finding that there is no material on record to show that any terms and conditions as claimed by the plaintiff-appellant in the suit were arrived at in between the parties. 15. Further, it is observed in the order that after taking evidence of both the sides it will be adjudicated that what was the rate arrived at in between the parties for the job work and in the job work what other works were included, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be presumed that contentions made by the plaintiff-appellant in the plaint are true and correct. In my opinion, the finding of the learned trial Court cannot be said to be erroneous because the finding with regard to not accepting prima facie case is based upon sound reason, so also, upon the fact that there is no documentary evidence on record to establish what type of written agreement for terms and conditions was entered into by the parties. In this view of the matter, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that finding of the trial Court is erroneous. 16. With regard to two other ingredients to be satisfied for granting temporary injunction viz., balance of convenience and irreparable loss, I am of the opinion that as per the pleading itself undisputedly the work was completed in the month of August 2009 and as per pleadings, the respondent company is construction company and the crasher plant was installed temporarily upon rented land, therefore, obviously after completion of the work the company is at liberty to shift the said plant for executing other job work at different place otherwise the company is required to spend huge amount for crasher plant. In this view of the matter, the balance of convenience is in favour of the respondent company rather than the plaintiff. It is true that in the event of suit being decreed the plaintiff will be entitled to recover the decretal amount and for the same there is pleading in the written-statement filed by the respondent company and it is very big company taking work in whole of the country for construction. As such the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to temporary injunction on the ground of balance of convenience also. Learned trial Court has rightly arrived at the finding that no case is made out in favour of the plaintiff on the question of balance of convenience. 17. With regard to the ground of irreparable loss, I have perused the finding of the learned trial Court. It appears that learned trial Court It appears that learned trial Court found that respondent company will suffer irreparable loss because land upon which the crasher plant is installed is rented land and no other work is required to be executed by the company within the jurisdiction of the civil Court, therefore, obviously if temporary injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff is granted, then, certainly the respondent company will have to bear rent without any avail and plant machinery will lie there idle, therefore, no useful purpose will be served while restraining the respondent company from shifting the crasher from the present place. In this view of the matter, upon this ground only, the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to get temporary injunction. 18. In this view of the matter, upon this ground only, the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to get temporary injunction. 18. For the reasons and discussion made hereinabove, I do not find any force in this miscellaneous appeal. 19. This appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.