JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner-plaintiff has filed this writ petition to challenge impugned order dated 13th of July, 2015 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Nagaur (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), whereby learned appellate Court has partially modified the order of temporary injunction passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagaur dated 20th of July, 2009 in a suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction founded on the right of easement to ingress and egress. 2. The learned appellate Court, while partially modifying the injunction order passed by the learned trial Court, has also taken note of the fact that the suit as such is pending since long and has, therefore, directed the learned trial Court to decide the main suit itself as expeditiously as possible within a period of 15 months from the date of passing of the order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the right to way of 18 ft., which the petitioner is enjoying since long, is sought to be curtailed by the appellate Court by reducing it to 15 ft., and that order has prejudiced the right of the petitioner. It is further argued by the learned counsel that this finding of the appellate Court would prejudice final outcome of the suit, and therefore, impugned order passed by the appellate Court is liable to be interfered with. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 5. It is trite that for deciding temporary injunctions, the courts are required to consider the affidavits of the rival parties and prima facie materials available on record. The appellate Court, in its discretion, has not interfered with order of temporary injunction granted by the learned trial Court but has simply observed that the disputed way be kept 15 ft. wide with further direction to the learned trial Court to decide the main suit itself within a period of 15 months. A discretion, which has been exercised by the appellate Court, in my considered opinion, is not liable to be tinkered with in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 6. wide with further direction to the learned trial Court to decide the main suit itself within a period of 15 months. A discretion, which has been exercised by the appellate Court, in my considered opinion, is not liable to be tinkered with in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 6. It is needless to observe here that any order passed by the appellate court in an appeal arising out of temporary injunction order cannot have any adverse affect on the findings and conclusions to be arrived in the main suit as the suit is to be decided on the basis of evidence of rival parties. Therefore, this apprehension of the petitioner is misplaced. 7. The learned trial Court is bound to decide the matter on the basis of evidence and materials available on record dispassionately without being influenced by the observations made by the appellate Court while deciding the appeal on temporary injunction. The learned trial Court, while deciding the suit, will examine the matter, in its entirety, and therefore, at this stage, I do not feel inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the appellate Court. 8. Consequently, writ petition fails and the same is, hereby, dismissed with the observations made supra.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******