Hon'ble VYAS, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. In this writ petition, it is pleaded that a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction along with application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was filed by the respondents-plaintiffs against the petitioner-defendants in which the trial Court passed an interim order on 07.11.2008 that petitioners defendants shall not disturb the peaceful enjoyment of plaintiffs respondents' possession and they shall not be evicted from the property in question without process of law. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners – defendants in which it is pleaded that the plaintiffs have made encroachment upon the land in question and 'patta' issued in their favor has already been cancelled by the Addl. District Collector under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, therefore, if any possession is taken forcibly by way of encroachment then no such stay order was required to be passed by the trial Court. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal also which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the grounds taken by the petitioner – defendants were ignored by the trial Court and appellate Court, therefore, both the orders passed by the trial Court and appellate court deserves to be quashed. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the entire writ petition. Admittedly, before cancellation of 'patta' by the Addl. District Collector under Section 97 of Rajasthan Panchayat Act, the plaintiffs were holding a valid 'patta' in their favor and Addl. District Collector while cancelling 'patta' remitted the case to the Panchayat to decide the question of title as per the judgment of civil Court. Meaning thereby, the plaintiffs respondents were in possession of the land on the basis of the 'patta' which was in existence prior to passing the order by the Addl. District Collector in revision No.16/2006 on 16.08.2007, therefore, the trial Court and appellate Court has rightly observed that the question of making encroachment by the plaintiffs cannot be examined at this stage. 5. In this view of the matter, the finding given by both the Court below for granting stay order does not require any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. 5. In this view of the matter, the finding given by both the Court below for granting stay order does not require any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, it is expected from the trial Court to decide the suit itself within a period of six months from today.