JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order of the Appellate Court dated 26.5.2015, whereby the appeal against the order dated 17.4.2015 passed by the trial court granting injunction on an application filed by the petitioner under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC has been allowed and the order has been set-aside. 2. The suit was filed by the petitioner seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents with the allegation that the respondents were trespassing on the land of road and therefore, prayed that they be restrained from raising construction over the land in dispute. 3. The application was opposed by the respondents defendants. 4. The trial court, after hearing the parties, by its order dated 17.4.2015 came to the following conclusion:- " cfn'kk mRrj esa fLFkr vke jkLrs dh Hkwfe ij vfrdze.k dj fuekZ.k djus dk iz'u gS] rks i=koyh ij ekStwn ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ls ;g Lohd'r fLFkfr gS fd fookfnr Hkw&[k.M ds cfn'kk mRrj esa vke jkLrk fLFkr gksuk Lo;a uxjikfydk ds nLrkost iV~Vk fnukad 12-8-2004 ls Lohd'r fLFkfr jgh gSA mDr vke jkLrs ds ikl esa LV~hi ySaM dh Hkwfe gks] ;g mDr nLrkost esa mYysf[kr ugha gS] uk gh foizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls ,slk dksbZ nLrkost U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa fookfnr Hkwfe dh iwohZ o if'peh Hkqtk esa 40 QhV dh Hkwfe ds vkxs 4 QhV 9 bap dh Hkwfe ij if'peh Hkqtk dh vksj blh izdkj iwohZ Hkwtk dh vksj ls 17-6 QhV Hkwfe ij foizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds }kjk tks fuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] og Li"V :i ls vke jkLrs dh Hkwfe ij gh fd;k x;k fuekZ.k gS rFkk blds laca/k esa izkFkhZx.k ds izFke n'"V;k ekeyk cuuk rks ik;k tkrk gSA " 5. Based on the above conclusion, the trial court granted injunction against the respondents-defendants from raising further construction and also called upon the respondents to give undertaking for removal of the construction in case the suit was decreed. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) CPC. 7. The Appellate Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the trial court committed error in finding prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and granting injunction and set-aside the order passed by the trial court. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) CPC. 7. The Appellate Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the trial court committed error in finding prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and granting injunction and set-aside the order passed by the trial court. The Appellate Court observed as under:- " 12- vr% bl fjiksVZ ls Hkh ;g Li"V gS fd mDr vihykaV us tks fuekZ.k dk;Z fd;k gS og fcfYaMx ykbZu ds vUnj fd;k gS rFkk ekSds ij jkLrk iwoZor utjh uD'kk vuqlkj dk;e gSA vr% blls Hkh ;g Li"V gS fd vihykaV viuk fuekZ.k dk;Z dj jgk gS og viuh Hkwfe ij gh dj jgk gSA jkLrs ij dksbZ vfrdze.k fd;k gks fdlh izdkj ls ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA mDr vihykFkhZ us tks NTts ckgj fudkys gSa og [kkylk Hkwfe ds cxy esa tks Hkwfe gS ml ij mlus tks dk;Z fd;k gS mldh isuYVh Lo:i uxjifj"kn }kjk isuYVh yxkbZ gS ftlds 1]86]487 :i;s mDr vihykaV }kjk tek djok, gSaA vr% blls ;g tkfgj gksrk gS fd vihykaV }kjk jkLrs dh Hkwfe ij dksbZ vfrdze.k ugha fd;k gS] u gh ml ij dksbZ fuekZ.k dk;Z fd;k gSA uxjifj"kn ds vf/koDrk ds }kjk gh bl rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mDr vihykaV us fdlh izdkj ls jkLrs ij vfrdze.k ugha fd;k gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us oknh jsLiksMsaV dk tks izFke n'"V;k dsl ekuk gS tks fdlh Hkh izdkj ls fof/kuqlkj ugha dgk tk ldrk gSA " 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Court fell in error in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent. It was submitted that the respondents have trespassed on the public way and therefore, the trial court was justified in granting injunction. 9. With reference to various documents i.e. Patta dated 4.8.2014, patta dated 12.8.2004 and sale deed dated 21.8.2014, it was submitted that the respondents-defendants have indicated the area of the land in question differently in different documents, which clearly shows that the defendants have indulged in trespassing on the land of the public way and therefore, the trial court was truly justified in granting injunction. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the Appellate Court with reference to the same documents. 11. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the Appellate Court with reference to the same documents. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. From perusal of the foundational basis as indicated by the trial court and quoted herein-before, it is apparent that the trial court fell in error in reading the document i.e. Patta dated 12.8.2004. The Patta dated 12.8.2004 pertained to sale of strip of land, on Northern side of respondents' plot, however, the trial court while reading the said document at several places in its finding pertaining to prima facie case has treated the said strip of land which forms subject matter of patta as land of public way, which essentially is a clear misreading of the said document. 13. The entire finding of the trial court is based on such misreading of the document dated 12.8.2004, which the Appellate Court while hearing the appeal has came to the conclusion that the patta dated 12.8.2004 clearly indicates the land in question being that of the defendant and has therefore, rightly reversed the finding. 14. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Appellate Court requires any interference by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.No case for interference is made out, the writ petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******