JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. This Civil Misc. Appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 22.9.2016 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metro (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) whereby, the trial court has partly allowed the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC preferred on behalf of the respondent No.1 Hari Singh and has restrained the appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 10 from alienating the property in question and causing any damage to the same. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 has filed a suit for partition while claiming that the Development Officer, Government of Jodhpur has issued Patta No.271 on 22.3.1938 in respect of the disputed land. It is stated by the respondent No.1 that the said Patta was issued in the name of Pratap Singh, father of the respondent No.1 and the appellant No.1, Jeetmal - appellant No.2 and Shayab Ram, predecessor of respondent Nos.3 to 10 and Mohan Singh, the respondent No.2. 3. It is contended that all the four persons were in joint possession of the said disputed land since long and their families are residing separately by constructing separate houses over the said land. The plaintiff has further contended that when he asked for partition of the land, the appellants as well as the respondent No.1 refused for partition of the property and are bent upon to dispose of the same, therefore, the decree of partition be issued in his favour. Along with the suit for partition, the respondent No.1 has also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. The learned trial court after hearing the parties concerned has partly allowed the said application and restrained the appellants and the respondent No.2 to 10 from alienating the property in question and also restrained them from causing any damage to the same. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the UIT has issued two Pattas in favour of the appellants in the year 2002 and the appellants are residing on the said plots, for which the pattas have been issued, by constructing their houses. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the UIT has issued two Pattas in favour of the appellants in the year 2002 and the appellants are residing on the said plots, for which the pattas have been issued, by constructing their houses. It is also claimed that the disputed land mentioned in the suit is separate from the land for which the Pattas have been issued in favour of the appellants. It is contended that the learned trial court without taking into consideration this aspect of the matter has illegally restrained the appellants and the respondent Nos.2 to 10 from alienating the property in question and from changing the nature of the same. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order. 6. The learned trial court while taking into consideration the fact that the Pattas have been issued in favour of the appellants in respect of two plots has observed that though the appellants have came out with a specific case that the disputed land is the other land from the land for which the Pattas have been issued but they have also claimed that before issuance of the Pattas in favour of the appellants, Pratap Singh, father of the appellant No.1 and the respondent No.1 has given his consent that he has no objection if the Pattas are issued in favour of the respondents. The learned trial court has observed that if the land for which partition is sought by the respondent No.1 is other than the land for which Pattas have been issued, there was no occasion for the appellants to seek permission or no objection from Pratap Singh for the purpose of issuance of Pattas in their favour. After observing this, the learned trial court has found that whether the right of the respondent No.1 has been extinguished from the land mentioned in the Patta dated 22.3.1938, is the question which can only be decided after taking evidence of the respective parties and, therefore, at this stage prima facie case in favour of the respondent No.1 exists. The learned trial court has further observed that if the appellants and the respondent Nos.2 to 10 are allowed to alienate the property and to cause any damage to the same, the respondent No.1 will suffer irreparable loss. The learned trial court has further observed that if the appellants and the respondent Nos.2 to 10 are allowed to alienate the property and to cause any damage to the same, the respondent No.1 will suffer irreparable loss. After observing this, the learned trial court has passed the impugned order restraining the appellants and the respondent Nos.2 to 10 from alienating the property or causing any damage to it. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and after going through the impugned order, this Court does not find any illegality in the same. 7. Hence, this Civil Misc. Appeal is dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.