JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. Under challenge by the petitioner-plaintiff Badrikashram Joshi Charitable Trust Jaipur (hereafter 'the plaintiff trust') is the order dated 28-3-2018 passed by Additional District Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereafter 'the Appellate court') in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.17/2017 (401/2017) titled RD Baheti Charitable Trust Vs. Badrikashram Joshi Charitable Trust, whereby the order dated 23-9-2017 passed by Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate (East) Jaipur (hereafter 'the trial court') in case No.39/2016, on an application for temporary injunction to the benefit of the plaintiff Trust inter alia protecting its possession on the suit property and its right to do seva puja of the deities installed on the suit property while restraining the RD Baheti Charitable Trust (hereafter 'the defendant trust') from interfering with the said possession and seva puja was set aside. 2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff trust was registered under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereafter 'the Act of 1959') on 3-10-2011. It filed a civil suit for mandatory and permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC against the defendant trust in regard to the suit property situate at Bagrana, Agra Road Jaipur where inter alia a temple of lord Hanuman ji, Shivji and Sitaram ji is situate on a parcel of land being khasra No.474 measuring 1 bigha 4 biswas in the ownership of the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) but in its possession. It was stated that the said property albeit standing in the name of the JDA in the revenue record had been developed by the plaintiff trust with financial support/ contributions from the general public and was being managed by the plaintiff trust which was also doing seva puja of the deities consecrated on the land. Yet the defendant trust was trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff trust and obstructing the seva puja of various deities including that of Hanumanji and Shivji situate within the suit property. This despite the right of seva puja with the plaintiff trust being recognized in the registration of 3-10-2011 as a public charitable trust under the Act of 1959. Thereupon injunction in the manner detailed above was sought. 3. This despite the right of seva puja with the plaintiff trust being recognized in the registration of 3-10-2011 as a public charitable trust under the Act of 1959. Thereupon injunction in the manner detailed above was sought. 3. On service of summons in the suit, the defendant trust filed a written statement as also reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC denying all averments and instead claimed possession and management rights of the temple including the right of seva puja of the deities on the suit property. It was submitted that Hanuman Prasad Joshi, the purported Trustee of the plaintiff trust was in fact only appointed as pujari and in that capacity also allotted a quarter for his residence within the suit property. It was submitted that the suit property having been fully developed by the defendant Trust, the said Hanuman Prasad Joshi was actuated by sheer greed and conspiring to misuse the property under the facade of the plaintiff Trust which had been clandestinely got registered as a public trust wholly ultra vires the Act of 1959. Possession of the plaintiff Trust was denied and that of the defendant Trust asserted. 4. The defendant No.4 in the suit, the Sarpanch of village Bagrana, where the suit property is situate, filed a written statement supporting the case of plaintiff trust and it having developed the temple/s while being in possession of the suit property. Possession of the plaintiff Trust was denied and that of the defendant Trust asserted. 4. The defendant No.4 in the suit, the Sarpanch of village Bagrana, where the suit property is situate, filed a written statement supporting the case of plaintiff trust and it having developed the temple/s while being in possession of the suit property. On consideration of the plaintiff Trust's application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC the trial court considering the factum of registration of plaintiff trust on 3-10-2011 under the Act of 1959 whereunder its right to seva puja of the deities in suit property were recognized, , the inspection report of the Inspector Devsthan department in the course of enquiry under the Act of 1959 prior to the registration of the plaintiff Trust recording that the plaintiff Trust was in possession, the reply filed by the defendant No.4 the Sarpanch of village Bagrana where the suit property situate stating that the plaintiff trust was in possession of suit property and Hanuman Prasad Joshi was carrying seva puja of deities, report dated 21-8-2016 prepared by the Commissioner appointed under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC as also the khasra Girdawari of Samvat 2067-2070 (2013-2016) recording the khatedari of the suit property in the JDA but the possession of Hanuman Prasad Joshi as Pujari, prima facie concluded that plaintiff trust was in possession of the suit property and carrying on seva puja as claimed. As far as the defence of the defendant trust was concerned the trial court found that albeit the name of defendant trust was carved/ inscribed on the platform of the statue of Lord Hanuman, the Satsang Bhawan and a few signboards elsewhere in the suit property, that by itself was not indicative of possession of its possession, albeit the defendant trust might have indeed contributed along with the general public in the development of the suit property. In the circumstances the trial court vide order 23-9-2017 allowed the plaintiff Trust's application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC and directed that during pendency of the suit the defendant trust would not interfere with the possession of the plaintiff Trust in suit property nor obstruct its seva puja of deities installed in the suit property. 5. Aggrieved of the order dated 23-9-2017 passed by the trial court the defendant trust filed a civil miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC. 5. Aggrieved of the order dated 23-9-2017 passed by the trial court the defendant trust filed a civil miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC. The appellate court vide the impugned order dated 28-3-2018 modified the interlocutory order passed by the trial court and held that as both plaintiff trust and defendant trust were in possession of parts of the suit property each was entitled to its protection and also carry on the seva puja of the deities. Aggrieved this petition has been filed by the plaintiff trust under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. R.P. Singh, Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Amit Jindal for the plaintiff trust emphatically submitted that the trial court having taken a plausible and reasonable view on the affidavit/s in support and opposition of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC as also the material in the form of documents submitted, there was no scope for interference therewith by the appellate court even if a different view was possible, which in fact in the instant case was not. Mr. R.P. Singh emphasized the factum of the statutory registration of the plaintiff trust on 3-10-2011 under the Act of 1959, the report of Inspector of Devsthan department in the course thereof, the report prepared by the court Commissioner appointed under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC and reply filed by the defendant No.4 the Sarpanch of village Bagrana, where the suit property is situate as also the khasra Girdawari of Samvat 2067-2070 to submit that the plaintiff trust was in exclusive possession of the suit property. He submitted that on the balance of convenience and irreparable injury test, they were also in favour of the plaintiff trust as the defendant Trust was only a voluntary contributors with other members of the public in the development of the suit property and had no manner of right or interest in the Trust. It in fact had admitted to the possession of Hanuman Prasad Joshi though conveniently labeling him as a Pjuari appointed and permitted to reside in the suit property under the alleged authority though non existent of the defendant Trust. 7. Mr. R.P. Singh submitted that the internal contradiction in the defence was thus evident which buttressed the plaintiff's case and led the trial court finding for the plaintiff Trust under its order dated 23-9-2017. Mr. 7. Mr. R.P. Singh submitted that the internal contradiction in the defence was thus evident which buttressed the plaintiff's case and led the trial court finding for the plaintiff Trust under its order dated 23-9-2017. Mr. R.P. Singh submitted that there was no good ground for the appellate court to interfere with such finding and exercise of discretion by the trial court. Reliance was placed by Mr. R.P. Singh on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Wander Ltd. Vs. Antox India P Ltd., (1990) Supp1 SCC 727 wherein the Apex Court held that the order passed by the court below in exercise of discretion was not to be interfered with unless the appellate court had reason to hold that the said order was arbitrary, perverse or capricious. Reliance for the same proposition was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Mehtab Khan vs. Khushuma Ibrahim Khanm, (2013) 9 SCC 221 . Mr. R.P. Singh submitted that the appellate court without cause for holding of the trial court's order dated 23-9-2017 to be either capricious, perverse or arbitrary had substituted its own discretion thereon in a manner evidencing irregular exercise of its jurisdiction contrary to the dictum of the Apex Court. Mr. R.P. Singh has further submitted that in any event the issue of registration of the plaintiff Trust under the Act of 1959 is a matter wholly within the scope of aforesaid Act, in respect of which a civil court has no jurisdiction except in the manner of Section 22 of the Act of 1959, which inter alia provides that any person having interest in a public trust or in any property found to be trust property, aggrieved by any entry made under Section 21 may within six months from the date of publication thereof on the notice board of the office of Assistant Commissioner under sub-section 1 of Section 21 institute a suit in a civil court to have such entry cancelled or modified or such a person can so do by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India facts dictating and the court permitting. Mr. R.P. Singh submitted that no suit with regard to registration of 3-10-2011 has been filed at any point of time. Mr. R.P. Singh submitted that no suit with regard to registration of 3-10-2011 has been filed at any point of time. In fact an appeal thereagainst under Section 20 of the Act of 1959 was filed only in the year 2016 and is yet pending without any interim order to the benefit of the defendant trust. 8. Mr. R.P. Singh further submitted that in this view of the matter the registration of the plaintiff trust where its right to seva puja of the deities in suit property which stands in the name of JDA was recognized, was binding on the civil court as it had no jurisdiction to address such registration and its incidents specifically detailed by the registering statutory authority. Reliance in support of the proposition was placed on the judgment in the case of Patel Field Marshal Agencies Vs. PM Diesels Limited, (2018) 2 SCC 112 , wherein the Apex court dealing with another Special Act as the Act of 1959 also is the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, held that the civil court was not empowered in such situations where its jurisdiction was barred or limited to decide questions which were only determinable by the designated statutory authority. Mr. R.P. Singh submitted that the trial court has thus rightly taken into 4consideration the registration of plaintiff trust on 3-10-2011 as other factors to prima facie recognize its rights of seva puja and management of the suit property and on that count found a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff trust. The defendant Trust has rightly been restrained from interference in all manner or form with the suit property, its management and seva puja by the Plaintiff Trust. It was submitted that the appellate court has yet in irregular exercise of its jurisdiction contrary to enunciation of the Apex Court sin the case of Wander Limited wrongly interfered with the order passed by the trial court. Its order be set aside, Mr. R.P. Singh submitted and that of the trial court be restored. 9. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Rajesh Mootha submitted that this court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should not interfere with the order passed by the appellate court, which is the final court of fact, as its impugned order dated 28-3-2018 does not suffer from patent illegality or perversity. Mr. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Rajesh Mootha submitted that this court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should not interfere with the order passed by the appellate court, which is the final court of fact, as its impugned order dated 28-3-2018 does not suffer from patent illegality or perversity. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma submitted that the appellate court from the material on record before it found that both the plaintiff and the defendant trusts were in possession of suit property and therefore directed rightly both to maintain status quo. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma submitted that it is not that the defendant trust was an alien to the suit property, inasmuch as there was adequate material before the trial court and the appellate court from the contemporaneous newspaper reporting going back to the year 2003 and photographs which indicated that the defendant trust had been actively engaged in the development of the trust property, holding of religious congregations and installation of deities on the suit property. It was submitted that the plaintiff trust can make no capital as a public trust registered under the Act of 1969 on 3-10-2011, inasmuch as the said registration is under challenge in an appeal under Section 20 of the Act of 1959. It was further submitted that registration of 3-10-2011 of the plaintiff trust was even otherwise wholly ultra vires the Act of 1959 and hence of no avail to it, inasmuch as neither the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1959 was followed nor contents of the application laid before the Assistant Commissioner Devsthan as statutorily mandated. The registration dated 3-10-2011 was a fraud on the statue conferring no right on the plaintiff Trust. The trial court had thus erred in considering the registration of 3-10-2011 as the ground for even prima facie finding in favour of the plaintiff Trust and restraining the defendant Trust. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma further submitted that the defendant No.4 Sarpanch of village Bagrana was an interested person in the suit property, and therefore his averments in support of the plaintiff Trust were of little avail. It was further submitted that the report prepared by the Commissioner appointed under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC was not determinative of possession of parties contesting and the trial court had misread the report to the plaintiff Trust's advantage. It was further submitted that the report prepared by the Commissioner appointed under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC was not determinative of possession of parties contesting and the trial court had misread the report to the plaintiff Trust's advantage. He submitted that the Khasra Girdawari is not a document wherefrom presumption in favour of one recorded in possession can be drawn. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma prayed for dismissal of the petition. Heard. Considered. 10. That an order under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC is discretionary in nature is not resintegra. No doubt the discretion has to be judiciously exercised. But where it is so, reflected from objective consideration of the underlying material before the trial court, and affidavits in support, the appellate court cannot just substitute it with its own. For so doing the appellate court has to first hold for good and judiciously ascertainable reasons that the discretion of the trial court was exercised in a manner palpably arbitrary, perverse or capricious. That is the settled principle of law as enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Wander Limited. 11. Order 39 Rule 1 CPC inter alia provides that where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise that the defendant inter alia threatens or intends to dispossess the plaintiff or cause injury to his legal rights, the court may grant a temporary injunction to restrain such dispossession/ injury in relation to such property in dispute. 12. The plain language of Order 39 Rule 1 only entails a prima facie determination of right of plaintiff for protection sought. And along with the ascertainment of the two ingredients of balance of convenience and irreparable loss the plaintiff is entitled to interim protection. An order on an application under Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC does not entail a mini trial and conclusive determination of complex questions of law. 13. In the instant case the plaintiff trust was admittedly statutorily registered on 3-10-2011 under the Act of 1959 after due process, including public notice inviting objections and after a fact finding statutory enquiry. Thereunder it has been conferred the right of seva puja of the deities and management in the suit property albeit standing in the name of the JDA but developed by contributions from the public. Thereunder it has been conferred the right of seva puja of the deities and management in the suit property albeit standing in the name of the JDA but developed by contributions from the public. The dispute of the ownership of property between the plaintiff Trust and JDA is not the subject matter of this petition. 14. The said registration dated 3-10-2011 thus far has neither been stayed, nor kept in abeyance or set aside, albeit an appeal thereagainst under Section 20 of the Act of 1959 filed in 2016 is stated to be pending. I am of the considered view that registration of plaintiff trust recognizing its right of seva puja and management prima facie establishes its case of being in possession. Besides, prior to registration of the plaintiff trust on 3-10-2011 the report prepared by Inspector of Devsthan department records the possession of the plaintiff trust on the suit property. That possession has been admitted by defendant No.4 the Sarpanch of village Bagrana, where the suit property is situate in his reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. Even the defendant trust admits in its written statement that Hanuman Prasad Joshi the trustee of the plaintiff trust under the registration dated 3-10-2011 was appointed as pujari and was allotted a room to reside therein. He was thus in possession. The extent of his possession is yet disputed. The question of status of Hanuman Prasad Joshi as Trustee of the plaintiff trust or a pujari appointed by the defendant trust, will be determined in the trial. The plaintiff trust's case of being in possession of the suit property is buttressed by the khasra Girdawati of Samvat 2067-2070, a government record, and a public document which has its own weightage at the stage of deciding an interlocutory application. It is no doubt true that the Commissioner appointed under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC found the defendant trust's name inscribed on the platform of statue of Lord Hanumanji and also reflected in some signboards on the suit property, that however in the overall facts of the case it cannot be held indicative of possession of the suit property by the defendant trust. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 28-3-2018 passed by the appellate court interfering with the plausible exercise of discretion by the trial court is quashed and set aside. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 28-3-2018 passed by the appellate court interfering with the plausible exercise of discretion by the trial court is quashed and set aside. And the order dated 23-9-2017 passed by the trial court is upheld, but in the peculiar facts of the case with the following further directions which appear to be necessary in the interest of justice:- i. That the "DAANPATRA" in the temples of the plaintiff trust be kept locked and not be open till the decision of the defendant's appeal under Section 20 of the Act of 1959 against the registration of the plaintiff Trust on 3-10-2011. ii. That the "SATSANG BHAWAN" in the suit property where the name of the defendant trust has been inscribed and the rooms atop the Satsang Bhawan be managed by a three member Committee constituted of a representative of the plaintiff trust, a member of the defendant trust and the jurisdictional SDO. iii. The SATSANG BHAWAN and the room atop in the SATSANG BHAWAN be let out only by the said three member committee. iv. All moneys received from (iii) above be kept in a scheduled bank in the name of the plaintiff trust and be utilized with consent of the 3 member committee for the upkeep of the SATSANG NHAWAN, the deities/ temple/s and overall upkeep of the suit property. v. The name of the defendant trust on the SATSANG BHAWAN and elsewhere presently obtaining not be erased. vi. The trial court dispose of the plaintiff trust's suit within twelve months of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. In that effort it should adhere to the enunciation of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Cotex Vs. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd., (2011) 9 SCC 678 where adjournments are limited to three or four times. 16. The petition stands accordingly allowed.