JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous appeal is directed against order dated 16.9.09 passed by the Additional District Judge (FT), Bhilwara, whereby an application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC preferred by the appellant-plaintiffs has been dismissed. 2. The relevant facts in nutshell are that one Shri Nand Lal sold 6728 sq. ft. land out of 8325 sq. ft. land owned by him by dividing it in four plots of different sizes and the remaining land i.e. 11 ft. in the western side and 16 ft. in the northern side was left open for the passage. Two plots out of the four plots were sold by Shri Nand Lal to Sukhlal, Ratanlal and Chandmal, one was sold to Shri Anil Samdani and one to Smt. Urmila Maheshwari. Later, Anil Samdani and Smt. Urmila Maheshwari also sold their respective plot, purchased as aforesaid to Sukhlal, Ratanlal and Chandmal and accordingly, they became owner of all the four plots and so also the land of the passage left for the use by the purchaser of the plots. Thereafter, Chandmal sold out his ⅓rd share in favour of Suresh Kumar Nolakha on 2.8.07 and thus, the ownership of the land stood vested in Sukhlal, Ratanlal and Suresh Kumar Nolakha, who later sold the entire land to M/s. Sita Ram Traders, the respondent no. 1 herein. 3. The respondent no. 1 applied for strip land measuring 700 sq. ft. in the southern side of the land.owned by it, which was allotted in its favour by the Municipal Council, Bhilwara. Thereafter, the respondent no. 1 made an application for conversion of the land whereupon the objections were invited by the respondent Municipal Council. The appellants herein raised the objections against the conversion of the land on the ground that the respondent no. 1 has acquired the title by way of sale deed executed by Sukhlal, Ratanlal and Suresh Kumar Nolakha over the land measuring 6728 sq. ft. and, therefore, the application submitted by them in respect of 1597 sq. ft. land in excess to the land owned by them cannot be entertained. 4. In these circumstances, the respondent preferred a suit for permanent injunction alongwith an application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction in terms that the land use may not be permitted to be changed and the respondent no. ft. land in excess to the land owned by them cannot be entertained. 4. In these circumstances, the respondent preferred a suit for permanent injunction alongwith an application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction in terms that the land use may not be permitted to be changed and the respondent no. 1 may be restrained from raising construction over the land in question. The suit was filed by the appellants in the representative capacity in terms of Section 91 of CPC under the permission granted by the court, subject to objections of the defendants, the respondents herein. The application for temporary injunction preferred by the appellants has been dismissed by the court below. Hence, this appeal. 5. The court below has arrived at the finding that 1597 sq. ft. land was left open by the erstwhile owner of the plot Shri Nand Lal to be used as approach road for the four plots sold by him. The court observed that it was a private passage to be used by the owners of the plots and any other person had no right whatsoever to pass over the said passage. Admittedly, all the four plots have been purchased by the respondent no. 1 herein and therefore, the court opined that the land which forms part of the passage also stand vested in the respondent no. 1 and nobody else can inter meddle with the right of the respondent no. 1 to use the said land. The court opined that on account of any construction raised by the respondent no. 1, if any person is at all affected then, it is Shri Nand Lal, the original owner of the land but, the same does not constitute public nuisance so as to adversely affect the rights of the public at large and, therefore, the plaintiffs, the appellants herein, have no prima facie case in their favour. 6. It is not disputed before this court by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the entire 8325 sq. ft. land was owned by Shri Nand Lal and out of the said land, 6728 sq. ft. land was sold by him by dividing it in four plots to different persons, which were ultimately purchased by the respondent no. 1. ft. land was owned by Shri Nand Lal and out of the said land, 6728 sq. ft. land was sold by him by dividing it in four plots to different persons, which were ultimately purchased by the respondent no. 1. It is also not in dispute that the land left open was to be used as passage by the owners of the four plots. The respondent no. 1 having purchased all the four plots has exclusive rights to use the land left open as an approach road for the plots in question. Undoubtedly, the land which is left open as approach road to these four plots cannot be termed as public way so as to make entitle the appellants or anybody else to inter meddle with the right of respondent no. 1 to use the said land. 7. Obviously, the application for conversion of the land submitted by the respondent no. 1 before the respondent Municipal Council shall be dealt with by the authority competent in accordance with law and, therefore, there is absolutely no reason to presume that the objection raised, if any, shall not be considered. 8. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case noticed above, in considered opinion of this court, the court below has committed no error in arriving at the prima facie conclusion that the user of the land as aforesaid by the respondent no. 1 does not fall within the definition of "public nuisance" and the same is not likely to affect the public adversely so as to make entitle the appellants and their likes to file suit in the representative capacity in terms of Section 91 of the CPC. Suffice it to say that in absence of any prima facie case in favour of the appellants, the learned court below has committed no error in refusing to grant temporary injunction as prayed for. 9. In the result, the miscellaneous appeal fails, it is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******