JUDGMENT : 1. The present revisional application has been preferred against refusal of ad interim injunction by the appellate court, the appeal having been preferred against a refusal of ad interim injunction, in turn, by the trial court. 2. The plaintiff/petitioner being a deity represented by one of its shebaits, filed the suit for declaration of title of the deity in the suit property, for permanent injunction restraining the principal defendant defendants/opposite party nos.1 to 8 from disturbing the peaceful enjoyment and possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and for consequential reliefs. 3. The trial court, while refusing ad interim injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff/ petitioner in terms of the prayer for permanent injunction in the suit, came to a finding that the plaintiff filed some documents, such as original power of attorney, extracts of the records of right and original khajna receipts, which apparently went on to show the possession of the plaintiff, prima facie, in respect of the suit property. However, the trial court refused to grant ad interim injunction on the premise that the plaintiff did not file any document revealing that the defendants were fishing and erecting a building on the suit property. It was further held that it was not possible to come to any conclusion prima facie that the defendants had no right, title, interest and possession of the suit property as they were residing at the same village and the subject-matter of the instant suit was in connection with a temple which concerned the interest of all the villagers. 4. The appellate court, while deciding on an ad interim prayer for injunction, did not give any reason at all and merely held that it appeared to the court that no prima facie case was made out by the appellant in his favour at that stage. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner produced sufficient materials to establish a prima facie case in order to get an ad interim order of injunction. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1, while controverting such arguments, submits that all villagers have an interest in the suit property, which is comprised of a temple where the villagers regularly worship and participate in various festivities. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1, while controverting such arguments, submits that all villagers have an interest in the suit property, which is comprised of a temple where the villagers regularly worship and participate in various festivities. Since the principal defendants were also among those villagers, no injunction order could be passed against the opposite parties, particularly an injunction of such nature that could affect the right of the opposite parties to offer worship at the suit property. 7. A perusal of the trial court’s order, on the face of it, shows that the trial court proceeded on an entirely erroneous legal footing. In view of the petitioner having produced sufficient documents to establish prima facie possession indicating title, the trial court went wrong in insisting on documents to establish that the defendants were fishing and erecting building on the suit property. It is difficult, in fact, to readily contemplate such documents which would establish fishing and erection of a building by the opposite parties and which could be produced from the petitioner’s custody. 8. Moreover, the trial court resorted to conjecture while inventing some probable right, title, interest and possession of the villagers over the suit property merely since the suit property related to a temple and the villagers might have a right to offer worship there. 9. This apart, the injunction, as prayed for, did not directly touch the right of worship and could never be, in any event, a final adjudication of such rights for the purpose of the suit. On the prima facie materials produced, the trial court ought to have granted ad interim injunction on a finding that the petitioner had produced sufficient material to prove a prima facie case to go for trial. It is by now cliché, that prima facie case does not amount to prima facie title. At the ad interim injunction stage, in particular, the plaintiff need not prove the plaint case to the hilt but has only to show that there is a triable question involved, to be decided in the suit. Such materials having been produced, the trial court apparently committed an error in refusing ad interim injunction. 10. The appellate court, in fact, went one step further in attributing no reason for refusal of ad interim injunction. Such materials having been produced, the trial court apparently committed an error in refusing ad interim injunction. 10. The appellate court, in fact, went one step further in attributing no reason for refusal of ad interim injunction. Adjudication of an ad interim prayer of injunction, either way, ought to be backed by reasons, particularly in the teeth of several documents of title, or at least possession, having been produced by the plaintiff. In such view of the matter, the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, has made out sufficient prima facie case to justify an ad interim order of injunction in favour of the petitioner. 11. However, since only opposite party no. 1 is represented, the petitioner is directed to serve copies of C.O. No. 3010 of 2018 on the opposite party no. 2 to 8, indicating that the matter will appear as a “Listed Motion” in the monthly list of November, 2018. Service on the proforma opposite parties is dispensed with for the present. 12. The petitioner will file an affidavit of service on the next date of hearing. 13. There will be an ad interim order of injunction restraining the opposite party nos. 1 to 8 from disturbing the peaceful enjoyment and possession of the petitioner in respect of the suit property till November 30, 2018, or until further orders, whichever is earlier. 14. Needless to mention, at this ad interim stage, only the prima facie case was considered and this adjudication is not conclusive for any further stage of proceeding in this revisional application and/or the proceedings in the trial court as well as in the appellate court.