ORDER This is an appeal preferred against order dated 07.02.2011 passed by Sub-Judge – VII, Gaya, in Title Partition Suit No. 15/10/216/10, refusing the prayer of ad interim injunction made on behalf of plaintiff appellant. 2. The admitted case of the parties is that one Late Ram Nandan Prasad Singh who died in the month of October 2002, followed by his widow Smt. Kusum Kumari Devi who also died in the year 2007, was common ancestor of the parties and plaintiff appellants are heirs (husband’s sons and daughters) of their deceased daughter Nirmala Singh, and respondents are three other surviving daughters namely, Manorma Singh, Shila Singh and Meena Singh besides son and daughter of Meena Singh, since in favour of one of the daughter of Meena Singh, Saumya Kumari, defendant no. 6, there are some deeds of gift executed by her deceased maternal grand mother Kusum Kumari Devi. 3. The plaintiff appellant has come out with the suit claiming 1/4th share in the entire suit properties being class – I, heirs of deceased late Ram Nandan Prasad Singh and his widow on being aware of about the deeds of gift etc. through notices issued in C.W.J.C. No. 17075/2009 with a relief besides other that on adjudication of deeds of gift a preliminary decree of partition to the extent of plaintiff share in suit property be passed. 4. And in schedule – B, they have given description of various lands said to be allotted in the unit of Ram Nandan Pd. Singh and his wife Kusum Kumari Devi in Ceiling Case No. 156/1973-74, and at the foot of said Schedule – B, there is description of details of suit property covering under Khata No. 16 in village Karamdih and Khata No. 102/191 in village Chandauti. But by filing separate petition under order 39 rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. they prayed for ad-interim injunction to restrain defendant no. 6 only from alienating the lands of village Karamdih under Khata No. 16. 5. The claim of the defendant appellant has been contested by stating that said Ram Nandan Pd. But by filing separate petition under order 39 rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. they prayed for ad-interim injunction to restrain defendant no. 6 only from alienating the lands of village Karamdih under Khata No. 16. 5. The claim of the defendant appellant has been contested by stating that said Ram Nandan Pd. Singh had already executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of his wife in the year 1951 and also executed deed of gift in her favour in the year 1962, and the properties in question exclusively belongs to Late Kusum Kumari Devi, who as absolute owner had dealt with the properties and in that course also executed various deeds of gift in favour of defendant respondent no. 6 and none of other heirs have any grievance against such transactions but of the plaintiff appellants having no cogent and convincing reason. 6. Much stress has been given by learned counsel for the appellant that if the lands in question are disposed of by defendant no. 6 nothing shall remain for final adjudication and during course of argument in appeal, in order to meet the question raised by this court, whether said Ram Nandan Pd. Singh after executing deed of relinquishment or deed of gift in favour of his wife had ever dealt with the subject matter therein, by filing supplementary affidavit, three documents, one, by way of objection petition filed by Ram Nandan Pd. Singh against notice issued under Land Ceiling Act in Land Ceiling Case No. 156/1973-74 has been filed, wherein in paragraph 7 there is reference of intention of keeping schedule – 5 land for him and on going through the said schedule – 5, in Annexure – 8, there is no whisper of the lands in Khata No. 16 of village – Karamdih, another document is filed to show that some lands were exchanged by Kusum Kumari Devi with one Babulal Singh but what purpose it is going to serve is not at all explained, and the third document is a deed of sale executed by Ram Nandan Pd. Singh on 13.09.1969 in favour of one Sidheshwar Prasad to show that lands covered under deed of gift executed by Ram Nandan Pd. Singh on 13.09.1969 in favour of one Sidheshwar Prasad to show that lands covered under deed of gift executed by Ram Nandan Pd. Singh in favour of his wife Kusum Kumari Devi has been dealt with by him, but, for the purpose of present appeal, wherein question of injunction is confined to the lands under Khata No. 16, such document and such assertion has no relevancy since it does not cover the lands under Khata No. 16. 7. Much objection was raised by learned counsel representing the respondents as regard by filing of these documents and their consideration and it is submitted that entertaining such documents in appeal is contrary to the provisions as contained in order 41 rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but, I failed to appreciate such objection since sub-clause (b) of Rule 1 of order 27 reads as such :- “27 (1)(a) -------------- 27(1)(b). The Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. 27(2) ------------- 8. Learned counsel for the appellant by placing reliance on the decisions of this court in a case Brajendra Nath Ghosh and others Vs. Sm. Kashi Bai and others reported in AIR (33) 1946 Patna 177, tried to lay emphasis that:- “--------- “it is not necessary to establish title. It is enough, if he can show that he has fair question to raise as to the existence of the right which he alleged and can satisfy the court that the property in dispute should be preserved in its present actual condition until such question can be disposed of. -----------“ 9. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the decisions reported in case Suresh Prasad Gupta Vs. Basudeo Prasad Gupta reported in AIR 1990 Patna 198; State of Maharashtra Vs. Vyasendra reported in AIR 1983 SC 632 ; W.B. Electricity Regulatory Commission Vs. -----------“ 9. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the decisions reported in case Suresh Prasad Gupta Vs. Basudeo Prasad Gupta reported in AIR 1990 Patna 198; State of Maharashtra Vs. Vyasendra reported in AIR 1983 SC 632 ; W.B. Electricity Regulatory Commission Vs. C.E.S.C. Ltd. reported in AIR 2002 SC 3588 , especially at page – 3609 in paragraph 66 wherein it is said :- 69.-------------- We have no hesitation in holding that the appellate power of the High Court satisfactorily is not hedged in by any restriction, but in our opinion, the High Court merely because it has unrestricted appellate power, should not interfere with the considered order of the Commission unless it is satisfied that the order of the Commission is perverse, not based on evidence or on misreading of evidence, ……………………………..” 10. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the decisions in case of Gangamma Vs. G. Nagarathnamma reported in AIR 2009 SC 2561 and Mashi Math Samsthan Vs. Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy reported in AIR 2010 SC 296 ; wherein paragraph 13 reads as such:- “13. It is well settled that in order to obtain an order of injunction, the party who seeks for grant of such injunction has to prove that ht has made out a prima facie case to go for trial, the balance of convenience is also in his favour and he will suffer irreparable loss and injury if injunction is not granted. But it is equally well settled that when a party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, question of considering the balance of convenience or irreparable loss and injury to the party concerned would not be material at all, that is to say, if that party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, it is not open to the Court to grant injunction in his favour even if, he has made out a case of balance of convenience being in his favour and would suffer irreparable loss and injury if no injunction order is granted…………………….” 11. In the instant case, as discussed above, plaintiff appellant in his pleading is completely silent about a deed of relinquishment executed by Ram Nandan Pd. In the instant case, as discussed above, plaintiff appellant in his pleading is completely silent about a deed of relinquishment executed by Ram Nandan Pd. Singh in favour of his wife and the situation, if any, prior to said document brought into existence besides the deed of gift executed by him in the year 1962 also in favour of his wife and the objection filed by Ram Nandan Pd. Singh in Land Ceiling Case vide Exhibit – 8. The schedule – 5 land intended to keep by him does not contain the land in suit i.e. lands of Khata no. 16 in village – Karamdih, as regard to which injunction has been prayed. If, at all, the said lands were earlier allotted in common unit of Ram Nandan Pd. Singh and his wife. Prima facie it cannot be said that the said Ram Nandan Pd. Singh even claimed his interest in the said properties. Consequently, since one of the co-allottee has dealt with such property, the plaintiff appellant apparently has no prima facie case. Before the court below as evident from the order impugned, no document was filed on behalf of the plaintiff appellant and three documents filed here during course of argument to meet the queries of this court as already discussed has no bearing on the suit land. Hence, other two requirements for order of ad interim injunction also does not fulfill. Thus, there appears no error committed by the court below, while refusing the prayer made under order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 12. Hence, finding no merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed on contest. However, there is no order as to cost.