JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 5.5.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Bharatpur, whereby the learned Magistrate has granted a temporary injunction in favour of the respondent. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.9.2011 passed by Addl. District Judge No.1, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 5.5.2011 and has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and declaration against the petitioner- defendants, in respect of his plot situated in Village Bansikhurd, Tehsil and District Bharatpur. Along with the suit he also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, against the petitioners. He claimed in the application that he was in possession of the plot in dispute which is an abadi land. He also claimed that the Settlement Department had wrongly shown the plot to be a charagah land. The plaintiff and other villagers had objected to the action of the petitioners when they came to know that their abadi land had been changed into charagah land. Since the land in dispute was illegally allotted to the 7th Battalion RAC, the 7th Battalion was disturbing the respondent-plaintiff's peaceful possession. Hence the suit. 3. In reply to the temporary injunction application the petitioner-defendants pleaded that by order dated 15.9.2008 the State Government had allotted the land to them for construction of Headquarters of 7th Battalion RAC, and for construction of residential quarters for its officials. After hearing both the parties, by order dated 5.5.2011 the learned Magistrate allowed the application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC. Since the petitioners were aggrieved by the order dated 5.5.2011, they challenged the same before the learned District Judge, Bharatpur. But, by order dated 19.9.2011 the learned Judge dismissed the appeal. Hence, this petition before this Court. 4. Mr. Parikshit Singh, the learned Dy. Govt. Counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the jamabandi for the year samwat 2043-2062 clearly shows that khasra No.460 is a charagah land. Therefore, the plaintiff-respondent is nothing more than an encroacher upon the said land. Hence, the learned Magistrate was not justified in granting a temporary injunction against the petitioners and in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. 5. Govt. Counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the jamabandi for the year samwat 2043-2062 clearly shows that khasra No.460 is a charagah land. Therefore, the plaintiff-respondent is nothing more than an encroacher upon the said land. Hence, the learned Magistrate was not justified in granting a temporary injunction against the petitioners and in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. 5. Heard the learned counsel, and perused the impugned orders. 6. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 5.5.2011 clearly reveals that according to the respondent-plaintiff and other villagers, it was claimed that in khasra No.513 the respondent-plaintiff was granted a plot by Gram Panchayat Bansikhurd by order dated 3.4.1988. By the said order, the respondent-plaintiff was also granted permission to construct a house. Upon the said permission, the respondent-plaintiff constructed a house and was living peacefully on the said property. Subsequently, according to the respondent-plaintiff and other villagers, in khasra No.513 which was an abadi land, the Settlement Department showed khasra No.460 and declared it to be charagah land. Taking the land to be charagah, the Collector allotted the land to the 7th Battalion RAC. However, subsequently when a hue and cry was raised by the respondent-plaintiff and other villagers, the Collector called for a report from the Tahsildar. According to the report dated 31.10.2008 submitted by the Tahsildar, he agreed that khasra No.460 is part of the abadi land where constructed houses are standing. 7. While discussing the issue of prima facie case, the learned Magistrate has noted the fact that the respondent-plaintiff had a patta legally issued by the Gram Panchayat Bansikhurd, he had the permission to construct a house on the land, and according to the report of Tahsildar dated 31.10.2008 houses were, indeed, standing in khasra No.460 which was part of khasra No.513. Thus, the respondent-plaintiff had the possession of the land in dispute. Moreover, the learned Magistrate has clearly observed that no document was submitted by the petitioners in order to establish that the land in khasra No.460 was declared as charagah. In the absence of cogent evidence showing the fact that the land was declared as charagah, and in face of the fact that the plaintiff had a legally valid patta, and according to the report of the Tahsildar houses were standing, the learned Magistrate was certainly justified in concluding that the respondent-plaintiff had a strong prima facie case in his favour. 8. 8. As long as the plaintiff had the possession of the property in dispute, the balance of convenience was also in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. Moreover, in case the houses were permitted to be demolished, an irreparable loss would have been caused to the respondent-plaintiff. Thus, the learned Magistrate was legally justified in granting a temporary injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. 9. The learned Judge has also noticed the fact that the respondent-plaintiff has been able to establish the three factors necessary for grant of temporary injunction. Hence, the learned Judge was equally justified in upholding the order dated 5.5.2011. 10. Since both the learned courts below have given valid and cogent reasons for passing the impugned orders, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition. It is, hereby dismissed. Consequently, the stay application also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******