JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J. (Oral):- Present revision petition is directed against the order passed by the courts below under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order on the ground that findings of both the courts below are erroneous. According to him, both the courts have misread the evidence available on record while passing an order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the plea. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. 5. It appears that in a suit filed by plaintiff before the court below an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was moved. In the said application a prayer to restrain the defendant from raising any construction over the suit land was made. Plea was resisted by defendants. They denied the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. After considering rival contentions, prayer of the plaintiff for ad-interim injunction found favour with it. It granted interim injunction restraining the defendants from raising constructions over the suit land before getting it partitioned. Order was challenged before the appellate court by the defendant (petitioner herein). It upheld the findings of the trial court. I find no legal infirmity with the order passed by the court below. All the parameters envisaged under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC having been met, courts below have rightly granted the injunction prayed for. There is no scope for interference in revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------