Pankaj Mithal, J.;- Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the plaintiffs appellants and Sri D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1. No one has appeared for respondent no. 2 despite service of notice being deemed to be sufficient. The appeal under order XLIII Rule 1 (r) CPC has been preferred against the order dated 3.2.2011 passed by the court of first instance in Original suit no. 420 of 2009 rejecting the plaintiff appellants application for interim injunction paper no. 7 Ga. It appears that respondent no. 2 Thakur Shree Govind Dev Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir is the owner of the property in question ie. khasara no. 707 Mauja Virandavan Bangar, Tehsil- Chatta, District- Mathura. The plaintiffs alleges that about 300 sq. yard forming part of the aforesaid land was leased out by respondent no. 2 in favour of their grandfather vide perpetual lease deed dated 28.12.1961 and some part was leased out in favour of respondent no. 1 Thakur Shree Rangji Maharaj Virajman Rang Mandir Vrindavan, Tehsil and District Mathura. It is the further case of the plaintiffs appellants that they are doing business of of sale of building material from the said land and they would suffer irreparable loss and injuries if their right to occupy the land is not protected. On the other hand, respondent no. 1 set up defence though the entire property belongs to respondent no. 2 but the same has been leased out as a whole in favour of respondent no. 1 vide lease deed dated 13.1.1859 (paper no. 46/47 Ga) and that the plaintiffs appellants have no concern with it. No part of khasara no. 707 was ever leased out in favour of plaintiffs grandfather Heera Lal as alleged by the plaintiffs appellants. The court below on consideration of the respective cases of the parties vide impugned order rejected the injunction application on the ground that the plaintiffs appellants have not been able to establish any prima-facie case and they are not likely to suffer any irreparable loss and injuries in case injunction is not granted. The court below on consideration of the respective cases of the parties vide impugned order rejected the injunction application on the ground that the plaintiffs appellants have not been able to establish any prima-facie case and they are not likely to suffer any irreparable loss and injuries in case injunction is not granted. Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the plaintiffs appellants challenging the aforesaid order contended that the plaintiffs appellants are engaged in business of sale and purchase of building material and the said business is being transacted from the land in question and as such the court below has manifestly erred in refusing the injunction to the plaintiffs appellants. It has further been submitted that in view of the lease dated 28.12.1961, plaintiffs appellants have prima-facie established their right and interest over the land in dispute. It is also submitted that the portion occupied by Samadhi is separate from the land in dispute and on that basis it can not be said that the plaintiffs appellants are not in possession. The plaintiffs-appellants are claiming rights on the basis of lease deed dated 28.12.1961 but it is disputed by the respondent no. 1. The validity of the said lease deed or the fights of the parties on its basis will be decided in the suit after the parties have adduced evidence. Therefore, the right of the plaintiffs-appellants to carry business from the disputed land can only be protected on the basis of their possession. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order. I find that no finding with regard to possession of the plaintiff appellants over the land in dispute has been recorded. Even the report of the Amin dated 18.7.2009 on record in no way establishes the possession of the plaintiffs appellants over the said land. The Amin report only records that at the time of inspection the plaintiffs appellants informed that they are doing business of selling building materials from the part of it and that they alleged to be in possession. The Amin also records the version of the respondent no. 1. He states that it was informed that respondent no. 1 Thakur Rajgji Maharaj Virajman Ran Mandir is the owner of the suit property and it is said to be in his possession. The Amin also records the version of the respondent no. 1. He states that it was informed that respondent no. 1 Thakur Rajgji Maharaj Virajman Ran Mandir is the owner of the suit property and it is said to be in his possession. However, no independent finding on the basis of inspection was recorded by the Amin with regard to possession over the land in dispute. In the absence of such a finding the court below was not justified in rejecting the plaintiff appellants application for interim injunction. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 3.2.2011 rejecting the application no. 7 Ga is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court below for fresh decision on the interim injunction application of the plaintiff appellants. The court below shall accord due opportunity to contest the aforesaid application and to adduce material in support of their respective case before deciding the aforesaid application. The interim injunction application shall be decided afresh within a period of six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. It is also made clear that this direction would not come in way of the court below in deciding the suit as a whole itself, if it is so possible. Appeal allowed accordingly. Cost upon the parties.