JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the defendants of Suit No. 83/2014 ‘Rashid Ahmed vs. Smt. Angoori & Others’ wherein he has questioned the veracity of the order dated 11.12.2017 passed by the Appellate Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 11/2017 ‘Rashid Ahmed vs. Smt. Angoori & Others’, by virtue of which Appellate Court while reversing the order of the Trial Court dated 29.8.2017, rejecting the application of the plaintiff Rashid Ahmed, under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 as filed by the plaintiff in the said suit was set aside and the appellate court allowed Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, the defendants petitioners before this court were injuncted in the following manner : **U;k;ky; flfoy tt ¼tw0fM0½ fodkluxj] nsgjknwu }kjk ewyokn la[;k&83@2013] jkf'kn vgen cuke Jherh vaxwjh vkfn esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukafdr 29-8-2017 ds fo:) izLrqr izdh.kZ flfoy vihy la[;k&11@2017] jkf'kn vgen cuke vaxwjh vkfn Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk voj U;k;ky; }kjk ewyokn la[;k&83@2013] jkf'kn vgen cuke vaxwjh vkfn esa izkFkZuk&i= 6lh2 ij ikfjr vkns’k fnukafdr 29-8-2017 vikLr djrs gq, vihykFkhZ@oknh dk izkFkZuk i=&6lh2 Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rFkk izR;FkhZ@izfroknhx.k dks vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk vkns'k ds ek/;e ls nkSjkus okn fuf"k) fd;k tkrk gS fd og okni= ds vUr esa of.kZr fookfnr lEifRr [kkrk la[;k&377 Qlyh o"kZ 1416 ls 1421 ds [kljk la[;k&1175d@6fe0 jdvk 0-3080 gS0 fLFkr ekStk jkeiqjdyka] ijxuk iNoknwu] rglhy fodkluxj] nsgjknwu ftlds iwjc esa & Hkwfe ekSgEen vgen vkfn] if'pe esa&Hkwfe gdhe vkfn] mRrj esa&Hkwfe uthj gln vkfn ,oa nf{k.k esa&Hkwfe vU; ij ;k blds fdlh Hkkx ij vfrØe.k@gLr{ksi u djs] u vihykFkhZ@oknh dh Qly dks uqdlku igqapk;s vkSj u gh bldk dkj.k cusaA voj U;k;ky; dk vfHkys[k fu.kZ; dh izfr ds lkFk voj U;k;ky; dks okil izsf"kr fd;k tk;sA izdh.kZ vihy dh i=koyh fu;ekuqlkj nkf[kr vfHkys[kkxkj gksA** 2. Though there happens to be an intricate rival claim, in relation to the property various other claims for the old Khasra No. 206, which the petitioner claims belongs to him as he happens to be recorded in revenue records by entry in his favour made in Khatoni pertaining to the 1416 to 1421 fasli. 3. At this stage when this court is scrutinizing the rival contentions pertaining to as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to be granted with the injunction or not. 3. At this stage when this court is scrutinizing the rival contentions pertaining to as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to be granted with the injunction or not. This court will have to confine with the case, with regard to the prima facie case as apparent from the pleadings raised by the parties. Plaintiff had instituted the suit in relation to the property which was described at the foot of the plaint with the following details. The details of which are given here under : Hkwfe [kkrk la[;k 377 Qlyh o"kZ 1416 ls 1421 ds [kljk uacj 1175 d@6fe- jdck 0-3080 gS0 fLFkr ekStk jkeiqjdyka] ijxuk iNqoknwu] rglhy fodkl uxj] ftyk nsgjknwu ftldh lhek,a fuEu izdkj gSA iwjc esa % Hkwfe ekSgEen vgen vkfn if'pe esa % Hkwfe gdhe vkfn mÙkj esa % Hkwfe uthj glu vkfn nf{k.k esa % Hkwfe vU; 4. According to the plaint averments the scheduled property described in the plaint is said to have purchased by the plaintiff/respondent by virtue of registered sale deed dated 11.10.2012, as he apprehended an interference at the behest of the defendants, according to the plaintiff/respondent, the necessity arose to institute the suit. 5. On the other hand, the defendant/petitioner after having put in appearance before the learned Trial Court had filed his written statement along with the counter claim wherein they have placed reliance on the Khatoni entries made in their favour alleging thereof that they have all their rights over the property, which according to their own case it has been described in the counter claim as to be falling in the old Khasra no. 206 having an area 0.260 hct lying in Khasra No. 1175 jha area 0.260 hct, as more particularly described by the chauhaddi given thereunder. iqjkuk jdck 0-1620 gS0 gky Hkwfe [kljk ua0&1175 > jdck 0-1620 gS0] fLFkr ekStk&jkeiqjdyka] ijxuk iNoknwu] rglhy fodkluxj] ftyk&nsgjknwu] ftldh lhek,a fuEu gSa%& iwjc esa % ikuh dh iDdh dqykok] rn~mijkUr jQhd iq= vyh c['k okyh Hkwfe tks fd mlus ekSgEen vgen dks foØ; dh gqbZ gSA if'pe esa % dPpk jkLrk yxHkx 20 QqV pkSM+k] rn~mijkUr Hkwfe gdhe] mÙkj esa % ikuh dk dqykok rn~mijkUr Hkwfe uthj] o nf{k.k esa % Hkwfe vUrwjke rn~mijkUr unh] mDr unh esa vUrwjke dh dkQh Hkwfe dV x;h gS] dh lhek,a vafdr dh gSA The Appellate Court after considering the rival claim, by the impugned order had allowed the appeal. 6. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the garb of the order dated 11.12.2017 as a matter of fact though the plaintiff/respondent has purchased only Khasra 1175 ka. But under the garb of the said order dated 11.12.2017 they are trying to interfere on Khasra 1175 jha, which is claimed by the defendant/petitioner. 7. The respondent counsel has also drawn the attention of this court with regards to the findings recorded by the court below pertaining to the veracity of title which the respondents claim in favour of because the findings recorded by the Appellate Court’s order. 8. Since the detailed scrutiny is required to be entailed to derive a logical conclusion pertaining to the rival claim of the parties, any finding in relation thereto by this court would be fatal to the proceedings before the court. Thus, while scrutinizing the judicious propriety of the Appellate Court’s order dated 11.12.2017, a slight clarification which is desirable to be made is that the said injunction order as granted by appellate court on 11.12.2017 would only be read exclusively limited to the extent of the suit property and will not in any manner have any bearing on the property as described in the counter claim. Subject to the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to cost.