JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The aggrieved plaintiff, has, through the instant petition, hence cast a challenge, upon, the concurrently recorded verdicts, upon, his application, cast under the provisions, of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, wherethrough, the espoused relief, vis-a-vis, an interim injunction being pronounced, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, and, against the defendants, rather stands declined qua him. 2. The learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has contended, with much vigor, before this Court, (i) that, with the suit property being undivided, amongst the contesting litigants, thereupon, in consonance therewith, hence, an, enjoined necessity, stood cast, upon, both the learned courts below, to accord the espoused relief, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, (a) unless cogent material stood therebefore, hence adduced, in display, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, petitioner herein, hence in the joint khata/khasra numbers, raising construction rather beyond or in excess of his share therein, (b) or unless, the defendants also standing displayed rather by apposite cogent material qua theirs' raising construction, upon, a portion, of, purported jointly owned suit property, hence, carrying equivalent, and, comparable monetary values, vis-a-vis, the value of the contested portion, of, the purportedly undivided suit property, (c) thereupon, the, declinings, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, the relief of injunction, would ensure qua equity being balanced, (d) whereas, he contends that with the plaintiff raising construction, within his share, in the undivided suit property, and, also with the defendants, completing constructions, upon, a portion of the suit property, hence, holding co-equivalent monetary value, vis-a-vis, the contested portion, of, the undivided suit property, (e) thereupon, it was un-befitting, for, both the learned courts below, to, decline the espoused relief, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff. 3. 3. However, the afore contentions, reared before this Court, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are, illusory as (i) there does not exist any material on record, for, hence succouring the afore espoused relief, (ii) rather a perusal of the concurrent verdicts, rendered, by both the courts below, making disclosures, qua, given consclusivity, and, finality, standing acquired, vis-a-vis, an earlier pronouncement, recorded, upon, Civil Suit No. 7 of 2011, (iii) and, with the contesting litigants thereat being similar, vis-a-vis, the contesting litigants hereat, (iv) and, also the suit khasra numbers therein, being similar, and, analogous, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, rather hereat, (v) thereupon all the requisite effects, of, the afore conclusive, and, binding verdict, spurring from, the afore similarity(ies) inter-se the thereat pleadings, and, vis-a-vis, the ones' raised in the instant suit, and, in the instant application, hence gain the apt galvanised momentum, (vi) thereupon both the learned courts below, in, recording concurrent verdicts against the plaintiff, and, resting their verdicts, upon, the afore assigned reasons, do not, ovbiously commit any impropriety, (vii) and, the concomitant effect thereof, is qua, when it is also borne out, from the records qua (viii) allotment of the suit land, was hence not made, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, rather through any valid family arrangement, (ix) and, also with the earlier hereto relief of injunction being declined, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, (x) given the plaintiff and his brothers and sisters, holding hence possessions, in the joint khewat, rather in excess, of their shares therein. In aftermath the afore espousals made before this Court, are unmeritworthy, and, hence stand rejected. 4. In view of the above observations, there is no merit in the instant petition, and, the same is accordingly dismissed, and in sequel, the impugned orders, are, affirmed, and, maintained. In aftermath the afore espousals made before this Court, are unmeritworthy, and, hence stand rejected. 4. In view of the above observations, there is no merit in the instant petition, and, the same is accordingly dismissed, and in sequel, the impugned orders, are, affirmed, and, maintained. However, it is clarified that in case, the apt computation, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, exceeding or not exceeding, his shares in the land jointly, held by him along with the defendants, and, as maybe required to be made, from khewat/khata/suit khasra numbers, other than the ones, qua, wherewith, the relief is espoused in the instant suit, and, in the instant application, (i) and, if the afore pleadings, do not exist, in the instant suit, (ii) thereupon the plaintiff may, if permissible under law, and, with the leave of the court, cast an application, before the learned Civil Judge concerned, and, if the afore leave, in accordance with law, is granted by the learned Civil Judge concerned, (iii) thereafter, at an appropriate stage, it may be permissible for the plaintiff, to strive, to modify the impugned order, concurrently recorded, by both, the learned courts below. 5. Any observation made herein above, shall not, be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, and, the trial judge shall decide the matter uninfluenced, by any observation, made, hereinabove.