JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the validity of the appellate order dated 01.12.2015, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (P.C. Act), Lucknow whereby the Misc. Civil Appeal preferred against the order of learned trial court dated 23.04.2015 has been allowed and the order of the learned trial court below has been set aside. 2. A suit by the petitioner-plaintiff was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff impleading the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and its officers and also respondent No. 5-Smt. Neeru Garg as defendant seeking a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful use and enjoyment of the petitioner-plaintiff over the use of public road as described in the plaint. The application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was filed with the prayer to restrain the defendants by way of interim injunction from creating any obstruction in the peaceful ingress and egress of the petitioner-plaintiff and other inmates of the house over the suit property. 3. The said suit is being contested by the defendants by filing written statement. The application for interim injunction was also opposed. The learned trial court by its order dated 23.04.2015 granted interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff providing therein that parties shall maintain status-quo. It was further provided that the plaintiff shall not create destruction in the boundary wall as per the map submitted by the Amin towards southern side of her house. 4. The said order dated 23.04.2015 was challenged before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge by the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and its officers in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2015. The Appellate Court by means of order dated 01.12.2015 has set aside the order passed by the learned trial court dated 23.04.2015. It is this order dated 01.12.2015 which is under challenge in these proceedings. 5. The plaint allegations made by the plaintiff while filing the suit are that she is owner in possession of House No. 652 Kha/39, Pratap Nagar, near Rani Laxmi Bai School, Sector-14, Vikas Nagar Vistar, Lucknow and that her house is situated over Khasra plot No. 188-M of Village Adil Nagar, Tehsil and District Lucknow, measuring 1 biswa 10 biswanshi which is equivalent to 2045 Sq. ft. ft. It was further alleged in the plaint that Khasra No. 188-M was Abadi land and Land Management Committee had executed a Patta in favour of the plaintiff under the relevant provisions of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act in the year 1988 and since then the plaintiff has been in exclusive possession over the said land and has constructed her residential house wherein she along with her family members is residing. The case of the plaintiff was further that she had taken electricity connection and has been paying house tax and water tax and other municipal taxes and the authorities have issued ration card, voter identity care. The case set up by the plaintiff was that main Sadar Darwazaa of her house opens towards south as earlier there was no road towards north of her house at the relevant point of time. The defendant- Avas Evem Vikas Parishad developed a housing colony towards southern side of plaintiff's house and that the Jal Nigam has allowed water and sever connection to the plaintiff's house from the southern side where her main gate is situated. It is also the case of the plaintiff that there is Kachcha road existing for ingress and egress on this Kachcha road on the southern side of her house. It was further averred that Avas Evam Vikas Colony is situated adjacent to the plaintiff's residential house and that they are trying to encroach upon the plaintiff's gate, wall, Chajja, Ramp etc. 6. The case put up by the plaintiff was contested by the defendants and it was submitted that after developing residential colony, house No. 14/509 was allotted to respondent No. 5-Smt. Neeru Garg in whose favour Avas Evem Vikas Parishad had executed a sale deed on 24.05.2003. It was further stated by the defendants that plaintiff had utterly failed to establish her prima-facie case for the reason that she has not been able to establish that she was allotted the land in Khasra No. 188-M validly. It was also stated that after the house of respondent No.5 there is dead end where the residential colony ends and further that the plaintiff does not have any right to use road on the southern side of her house. 7. It was also stated that after the house of respondent No.5 there is dead end where the residential colony ends and further that the plaintiff does not have any right to use road on the southern side of her house. 7. Learned trial court while considering the respective claims of the parties has found that the plaintiff was able to establish prima-facie case as the Amin Commissioner in his report has submitted that on the southern side of the house of the plaintiff, a gate and wall were found and further that Amin Commissioner's report mentions that window of house No. 14/509 belonging to the respondent No. 5 also opens on the road which has been constructed on the land lying between House No. 14/509 and house of the plaintiff. It has also been observed by the learned trial court that defendants have admitted that there exists a ramp and gate on the southern side of the plaintiff's house, though, they have illegally been constructed. The learned trial court thus, found that since on the southern side of the house of plaintiff, there exists a road and Chajja of her house lies on the southern side as such she will have an easementary right. The learned trial court further observed in its order that as to whether the plaintiff has easementary right or not will depend on determination of the issue on analysis of evidence to be led in the proceedings of the suit. However, prima-facie it is established that plaintiff has constructed a gate, window, Chajja and ramp on the southern side of her house as such it appears to be appropriate to direct the parties to maintain status-quo. 8. The appellate court, however, while upsetting the evidence recorded by the learned trial court has observed that plaintiff has not denied that there exists a gate on the northern side of her house and further that as far as the prima facie case is concerned, the plaintiff has utterly failed to establish the same for the reason that she is relying on patta allegedly executed in the year 1988 which is not approved by the Sub Divisional Officer. The appellate court has also relied upon the case of respondents-defendants that plaintiff is resident of district Unnao, which fact has not been denied by the plaintiff. 9. The appellate court has also relied upon the case of respondents-defendants that plaintiff is resident of district Unnao, which fact has not been denied by the plaintiff. 9. The question which falls for consideration of this Court as to whether in a case where plaintiff fails to established the prima-facie case, the question of considering the balance of convenience or irreparable loss and injury of party concerned would be material or not. The issue is well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kashi Math Samsthan and another Vs. Shrimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy and another, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 689 where Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in order to obtain an order of injunction, the party who seeks grant of such injunction has to establish not only the prima-facie case but balance of convenience and further that in case the injunction is not granted, he shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment has further observed that it is equally well settled that in case the party fails to prove prima-facie case, 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 party fails to prove prima-facie case , it will not be open to the court to grant injunction, even if the case of balance of convenience is made out and the party is able to establish that he would suffer irreparable loss and injury if no injunction order is granted. Para 16 of the said judgment in the case of Kashi Math Samsthan and another (supra) is quoted below: - "16. 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 he 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. 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 he 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. Therefore keeping this principle in mind, let us now see whether the appellant has been able to prove prima-facie case to get an order of injunction during the pendency of the two appeals in the High Court". 10. So far as the facts of the instant case are concerned, the appellate court has given finding that plaintiff has failed to establish prima-facie case and reason given therefor by the appellate court is that patta being relied upon by the plaintiff is not approved by the Sub Divisional Officer. Any grant of land under the provisions of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act by the Land Management Officer requires approval by the Sub Divisional Officer concerned and in absence thereof patta cannot be said to be vaild. It is thus that the appellate court formed the view that the plaintiff has failed to establish her prima-facie case. Further, it is noteworthy that it has not been denied by the plaintiff that on the northern side of her house there exists a gate. Thus, the case of irreparable loss and injury in case injunction is not granted is also not made out in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the order dated 01.12.2015, passed by the appellate authority while allowing the Misc. Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2015 preferred by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 12. Petition is, thus, dismissed. 13. 11. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the order dated 01.12.2015, passed by the appellate authority while allowing the Misc. Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2015 preferred by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 12. Petition is, thus, dismissed. 13. However, it is observed that when the parties to the suit adduced the evidence during proceedings of the suit in support of their respective claims, it will be open to the court to arrive at a different conclusion at the time of disposal of the suit and grant a relief accordingly. The finding given by the learned appellate court or by this Court in this order would not prejudice the case of the parties in the pending suit before the learned trial. The learned trial court would independently decide the respective claims of the parties on merit without being influenced by any observation/finding made or given in this judgment or in the judgment dated 01.12.2015, passed by the learned appellate court. 14. Looking into overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is also provided that learned trial court shall expedite the proceedings of Regular Suit No. 532 of 2012, Smt. Shakuntala Singh Vs. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad and conclude the same within a period of one and half years from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 15. Parties to the suit shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments and shall cooperate with the proceedings of the learned trial court. 16. However, there will be no order as to costs.