JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral) By way of this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 3.8.2018, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P. in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.147 of 2018, titled as Raju Ram Versus Kewal Singh and Civil Miscellaneous Application No.168 of 2018 titled as Kewal Singh Versus Raju Ram, as also judgment dated 27.10.2018, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.21-N/14 of 2018, titled as Kewal Singh Versus Raju Ram and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.22-N/14 of 2018 titled as Kewal Singh Versus Raju Ram. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of present petition are that a Civil Suit has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff Raju Ram (hereinafter to be referred as the ?plaintiff) in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P. i.e. Civil Suit No.153/1 of 2017 for permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendant (present petitioner) from raising construction and causing any interference over the suit land comprised in khasra No.552/1 and 555/3, kita-2, measuring 336.55 square metres, situated in revenue village Rajgarh 1st, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P., either by himself or through his agents, servants etc. 3. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the plaintiff, praying for an interim injunction against the defendant from raising construction and from changing nature of the land comprised in khasra No.552/1 and 555/3 i.e. the suit land. Petitioner also preferred application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned trial Court. 4. Both these applications were disposed of by the learned trial Court vide order dated 3.8.2018. While the application filed by the present petitioner was dismissed as not maintainable in the absence of there being any Counter Claim filed by the defendant, the other application filed by the respondent herein was allowed by the learned trial Court and the petitioner was restrained from interfering and raising construction on the land comprised in khasra No.552/1/2and 555/3 and parties were further directed to maintain status-quo in respect of khasra No.552/1/1 till the disposal of the main suit. 5. 5. Learned trial Court while allowing the application filed by the plaintiff held that plaintiff had been able to satisfy the tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. While disallowing the contention of the petitioner/ defendant therein with regard to the pedency of the partition proceedings, learned trial Court held that the contention of the defendant that the partition proceedings were carried out at the back of the petitioner were contrary to the record, because record demonstrated that after the report of partition was received from Field Kanungo, Assistant Collector, 1st Grade ordered the service of the parties and on 24.11.2016, the presence of the defendant who was arrayed as respondent No.21 in the partition proceeding, was duly marked. Defendant alongwith other respondents, was appearing before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade and had consented to the partition proposed by the Field Kanungo at the spot, therefore, claim that the partition proceedings were concluded at the back of the defendant stood belied. 6. Learned trial Court further held that it was undisputed that land comprised in khata khatauni No.27/62 to 70, total measuring 4055.45 square metres was joint between the parties and plaintiff had filed an application before Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Rajgarh for partition of the joint land. The case was decided by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 4.1.2017 and khasra No.552/1, measuring 210.15 square metres and 555/3, measuring 126.40 square metres were allotted to the plaintiff. In the jamabandi for the year 2013-14, defendant along with his brother was shown in possession of khasra Nos. 551 and 552 and a separate khatauni bearing No.69was carved out, but the total area of the said khasra numbers was 400.76 square metres. Defendant and his brother had in total purchased 6 biswas of land while comes out to 242.7866112 square metres and if instrument of partition was perused then defendant alongwith his brother were allotted 4 khasra numbers namely 551, 552/2, 552/3 and 552/4, measuring 242.98 square metres and thus defendant and his brother were allotted land in proportion to their share in the joint holding. Learned trial Court further held that when the land is joint, a co-sharer can with the consent of other co-sharers be in possession of land more than his share, but when the partition stood conducted by metes and bound, then such co-sharer who was though in possession of more than his share of the joint land will only be allotted such area which falls to his share. It further held that such co-sharer would not be entitled to claim the excess area which is in his possession. 7. Learned trial Court thus held that the plaintiff was able to demonstrate prima facie case, balance of convenience, as also irreparable loss in case his prayer for grant of interim relief was not accepted. 8. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner herein filed appeals before the learned Appellate Court. Learned Appellate Court vide order, dated 27.10.2018, while concurring with the findings returned by the learned trial Court, dismissed the appeals. 9. Learned Appellate Court held that record demonstrated that defendant was in excessive possession of the land then his entitlement and therefore, he and his brother were allotted the land as per their entitlement and excess share was given to the plaintiff and possession thereof was also delivered to the plaintiff on spot. It took note of the fact that defendant had stated that the orders passed in the Partition Proceedings stood assailed by him by way of a Revision Petition before the Divisional Commissioner. It also concurred with the findings returned by the learned trial Court that the petitioner had actively participated in the Partition Proceedings. It observed that as per record defendant was specifically notified that possession on the spot shall be delivered on 29.8.2017 and defendant had signed this document and there was no explanation regarding the same either in the written statement or in the application filed by him. It also negated the plea of the petitioner that the order passed by the Assistant Collector was without jurisdiction and was null and void order by observing that Assistant Collector, 1st Grade was competent to conduct partition proceedings under the H.P. Land Revenue Act and the order passed by the said Authority was a valid order subject to appeal. On these basis, learned Appellate Court while concurring with the finding returned by the learned trial Court, dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioner. 10. On these basis, learned Appellate Court while concurring with the finding returned by the learned trial Court, dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioner. 10. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner/ defendant has preferred the present petition. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the impugned orders as well as other documents appended with the present petition. It is settled law that in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court in routine does not re-appreciates the findings returned by the learned Courts below as an Appellate Court. The High Court interferes only if there is any perversity in the order which if not cured would result in grave injustice to the party. Learned trial Court after appreciation of the contention of the respective parties and after taking into consideration the documents on record, came to the conclusion that the applicant therein had made out a case for grant of interim injunction. The findings so returned by the learned trial Court have been upheld by the learned Appellate Court. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the documents which have been appended with the present petition made an endeavour to persuade this Court to come to the conclusion that view other than arrived at by the learned trial Court was also possible in the facts of the case. As per me, this is no ground to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Courts below. If the view arrived at by the learned Courts below is one of the possible view, which could have had been arrived at on the basis of the factual matrix before it, then the High Court need not interfere with the view so taken by the learned Court below under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. As both the learned Courts below have come to the conclusion that in terms of the Partition Proceedings, plaintiff was in possession of the land, which came to him as per the Partition Proceedings, it cannot be said that interim order passed by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court is bad in law. 13. As both the learned Courts below have come to the conclusion that in terms of the Partition Proceedings, plaintiff was in possession of the land, which came to him as per the Partition Proceedings, it cannot be said that interim order passed by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court is bad in law. 13. That being the case, no case for interference with the impugned orders has been made out by the petitioner because it is not the case of the petitioner that either the orders were passed by the learned Courts below by not adhering to the principles of natural justice nor it is the case of the petitioner that the learned Courts below were not having any authority or jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders. 14. Now, I will deal with the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the learned trial Court that the application filed by the defendant therein under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not maintainable, is a perverse finding. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it is not as if under the provisions of order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is only the plaintiff, who can approach the learned trial Court for grant of interim relief and said an application can also be filed by the defendant. He submitted that this important aspect of the matter was ignored by the learned trial Courts while holding that in the absence of there being a counter claim, application filed under order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of the defendant was not maintainable. Learned Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka, titled as Shakunthalamma & others Versus Smt. Kanthamma & others reported in AIR 2015 Karnatka 13. 16. Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:- ?1. Learned Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka, titled as Shakunthalamma & others Versus Smt. Kanthamma & others reported in AIR 2015 Karnatka 13. 16. Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:- ?1. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted- Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise- (a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or (b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to [defrauding] his creditors, (c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit,] the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property [ or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit] as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders. 2. Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach- (1) In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right. (2) The Court may by order grant such injunction, on such terms as to the duration of the injunction, keeping an account, giving security, or otherwise, as the Court thinks fit?. 17. A perusal of the said statutory provisions demonstrates that Court can grant a temporary injunction in case the eventualities which have been culled out in Clauses =a', =b' and =c' thereof are fulfilled. 18. 17. A perusal of the said statutory provisions demonstrates that Court can grant a temporary injunction in case the eventualities which have been culled out in Clauses =a', =b' and =c' thereof are fulfilled. 18. Clauses =b' and =c' of Rule (1) clearly contemplates passing of a restraint order against the defendant. However, Clause =a' does not uses the word ?defendant?. The word used therein is ?any party to the suit?. 19. By interpreting the said provisions of Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the full Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Shakunthalamma & others (supra). has held, and rightly so, that in case a defendant approaches the trial Court and makes out a case under the provisions of Order 39, Rule (1) (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, then the Court can consider such application filed by the defendant on merit. This Court concurs with the findings so returned by the High Court of Karnataka. 20. However, coming to the facts of the present case, the application was so filed by the present petitioners before the learned trial Court was not in terms of provisions of Order 39, Rule (1) (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Prayer made in the application which was filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned trial Court by the petitioner, reads as under:- ?It is, therefore, prayed that the application may kindly be allowed and respondents may be directed not to interfere in the suit land either themselves or through their agents, servants, assignee etc.? The entire thrust of the application was that the learned trial Court may direct the respondents i.e. the plaintiff therein, not to interfere in the suit land either himself or through his agents etc. Such an application in my considered view on behalf of the defendant is not envisaged under the provisions of Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A defendant can maintain an application only if he is able to prove that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated. This was not the case made out in the application by the defendant. 21. Therefore, in view of above findings, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. This was not the case made out in the application by the defendant. 21. Therefore, in view of above findings, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the observations which have been made by this Court in this judgment are only for the purposes of the adjudication of the present petition. It is clarified that the proceedings which have been initiated by the present petitioner before the Revenue Authority, shall be decided by the said Authority on its merit, completely influenced by any observation made by this Court in the present case. Petition stands disposed of in above terms so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.