JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Plaintiff No.1 Ram Kali, is, the wife of the defendant, and, co-plaintiffs No. 2, 3 and 4, are, born out of the wedlock inter-se co-plaintiff No.1, with, the defendant. The plaintiffs instituted a suit, claiming therein hence rendition, of, a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, for thereupon restraining the defendant, from, evicting them, from, the residential house or alienating the suit property comprised in khevat No.3, khatauni No.3, khasra No. 20, 25, 26, 29 total kita 4 measuring 1-11-13 bighas and land comprised in khata/khewet No.2, khatauni No.2, khasra Nos. 19, 33, 34, 42, 44, 35, 87, 93, 104, 293/124, 130, 295/131, 137, 139, 140, 141, 145, 147, 149 and 156 total kita 20, measuring 71-17-19 bighas, situated village Gummu, (Plach) P.O. Jagijit Nagar, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. 2. The gravamen of the pleadings, cast in the plaint, is qua the suit khasra numbers hence carrying the status of coparcnery property. However, no, apposite documentary evidence/material comprised, in preceding two mutations, appertaining, to the suit khasra numbers being attested, respectively, vis-a-vis two preceding vis-à-vis predecessors-in-interest of the defendant, came to be hence tendered/adduced. Consequence thereof is of the aforesaid plea being not founded upon apt befitting therewith, any, documentary evidence/material. 3. During the pendency of the civil suit, before, the learned trial Judge, the plaintiffs, cast, an application, under, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking therein rendition, of, an order of ad-interim injunction, for, restraining the defendant, from, alienating the suit property or against his evicting them, from the apt portion, of, the residential house. The aforesaid application was dismissed, by the learned trial Judge, and, the order of dismissal, was affirmed, by the learned Appellate Court, hence being aggrieved therefrom, the plaintiffs have instituted the instant petition, before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs, has, fairly conceded, that the relevant two aforesaid documents, remained, unappended with the plaint nor are reflected in the apposite list relied upon. Even the aforesaid concessions’, of the learned counsel, for, the plaintiffs’, hence, were considered by the learned courts below, whereupon the learned courts below concluded, qua the averment cast, in the plaint, vis-à-vis, the suit property, being ancestral coparcnery property, hence wanting, in, legal vigor. Even the aforesaid concessions’, of the learned counsel, for, the plaintiffs’, hence, were considered by the learned courts below, whereupon the learned courts below concluded, qua the averment cast, in the plaint, vis-à-vis, the suit property, being ancestral coparcnery property, hence wanting, in, legal vigor. Consequently, when, hence for rendering, a, valid order, of, ad-interim injunction, it, was imperative for the plaintiffs, to prima facie establish, theirs’ purported coparcnery interest, in, the suit property, whereas, the aforesaid, sine-qua-non remaining not established, thereupon it cannot be said, that, the learned courts below have committed any error, in dismissing plaintiffs application, cast under the provisions, of, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. 5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant petition, and, the same is accordingly dismissed, so also all pending applications, if any.