JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The plaintiffs instituted, a, suit bearing Civil Suit No. 17/19 of 2012, before the learned trial Judge concerned, seeking therethrough, hence, rendition, of, a declaratory decree, besides rendition, of, a decree, of, permanent prohibitory injunction, vis-a-vis, the, suit khasra numbers, and, against the defendants, (i) and, the anvil, of, the afore espoused declaration, is, embodied in theirs (a) being owner through adverse possession, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, and, (b) revenue entries, prepared subsequent to the year 1950, reflecting the suit land, becoming initially vested in the Panchayat, and, thereafter, in, the State of Himachal Pradesh, and, whereafter, it became allotted to the defendants, being declared null and void. The afore suit became contested by the defendants. However, during, the pendency of the afore civil suit, before the learned trial Court, an application, cast, under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1, and, 2 CPC, became instituted therebefore rather by the plaintiffs, seeking therethrough pronouncement, of, relief, of, ad-interim injunction, vis-a-vis, suit khasra numbers, and, against the defendants, (c) and, upon the afore application, an affirmative order become recorded, by the learned trial Court, and, whereafter, the learned trial Judge hence directed the contesting litigants to maintain status quo, qua, the nature, and, possession of the suit khasra numbers, till a decision, upon, the afore civil suit, becoming made. 2. The aggrieved defendants constituted therefrom, an appeal, before the learned first Appellate Court, and, upon the apposite Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the learned trial Judge, after dismissing the application, filed therebefore, by, the plaintiffs, under Order 42 Rule 27 CPC, seeking therethrough, leave of the Court, to adduce into evidence, the report of the Halka Patwari, as well as, the report of Halka Kanungo, hence proceeded to allow the defendants appeal, and, obviously, set aside the order recorded, on 11.3.2013, hence by the learned trial Judge, upon, CMA No. 46/6 of 2012. 3. The plaintiffs, becoming aggrieved therefrom hence institute thereagainst the instant petition hence before this Court. The plaintiffs'' endeavor would beget success, only upon, at this stage, this Court becoming prima facie satisfied, in as much as, (i) qua, a, prima facie case existing, vis-a-vis, the plaintiffs, (ii) the balance of convenience being loaded qua them, (iii) , and, irreparable loss, becoming encumbered, upon, the defendants, upon, the espoused relief becoming declined to them. The plaintiffs'' endeavor would beget success, only upon, at this stage, this Court becoming prima facie satisfied, in as much as, (i) qua, a, prima facie case existing, vis-a-vis, the plaintiffs, (ii) the balance of convenience being loaded qua them, (iii) , and, irreparable loss, becoming encumbered, upon, the defendants, upon, the espoused relief becoming declined to them. Necessarily hence this Court, for, construing, vis-a-vis, the apposite triplicate afore tests becoming satisfied, rather, is, enjoined to allude, to, the apt therewith documentary evidence, rather making the afore echoings. Even though, the documentary evidence, as, exists on, the, record, of, the extant lis, reflects, vis-a-vis, the plaintiffs'' submission, vis-a-vis, the revenue entries, prior, to, the year 1950, not clearly reflecting, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, becoming validly vestable in the panchayat, rather, not garnering any succour therefrom (a) and, besides, whereafter, the suit khasra numbers, become allotted to the defendants. (b) However, yet, the presumption of truth, as, enjoyed by the afore reflections, as cast, in the afore revenue documents, was, rather attempted to beget scuttlings, vis-a-vis, their vigor, hence by the plaintiffs, through theirs'', making dependences, upon, the, drawing, of, proceeding, against them, under Section 163, of, the H.P. Land Revenue Act, and, also, upon, the, factum, of, the afore proceedings becoming dropped, and, wherefrom, they imperatively, strive, to, garner, a, concomitant conclusion, vis-a-vis, (c) the plaintiffs holding rather possession of the suit land, (d) theirs succeeding, in their, projection vis-a-vis, theirs acquiring title, through adverse possession, qua, the, suit khasra numbers. 4. Xxx XXX XXX 5. 4. Xxx XXX XXX 5. Though the learned trial Judge, had meted credence to, the, afore espousal of the plaintiffs, nonetheless, the dispelling thereto apt reasons, as, recorded by the learned first appellate Court, (i) emerge from want, of, connectivity, arising inter-se, the khasra Numbers mentioned, in, the statutory notice issued, under Section 163, of, the H.P. Land Revenue Act, rather by the officer concerned, and, vis-a-vis, the extant suit khasra numbers, (ii) thereupon on anvil, of the afore drawing of proceedings, against, the plaintiffs, rather, theirs'' becoming deconstrained, to, strive, for, making any conclusion, vis-a-vis, the afore proceedings, as drawn against, the plaintiffs, rather appertaining to the suit khasra numbers, (ii) nor also the plaintiffs, becoming empowered, to, contend that hence the presumption, of, truth enjoined by the revenue records, rather, reflecting, qua, the defendants, becoming allotted, the, suit khasra numbers, by the competent authorities hence loosing the apt vigor. Moreover, the plaintiffs, also cannot hence contend that they acquired possession, through, adverse possession, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, (iii) conspicuously, with for the afore tenacious reasons, their afore dependence(s) hence, for, making, the, afore espousal, becoming rather aptly rested, upon, proceedings, drawn, against the plaintiffs, under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act rather becomes weakened. In sequel, the plaintiffs cannot be concluded, to, prima facie hold any right, title or interest, vis-a-vis, the suit property nor can they contend that, upon, relief of injunction becoming declined, vis-a-vis, them hence irreparable loss and, injury, becoming entailed upon them. In aftermath, for lack of apt satiation becoming visited, vis-a-vis, the apt parameters, hence, governing the according, of, relief of injunction, thereupon the impugned order rather deserves, no, interference, and, hence deserves to be maintained, and, affirmed. 6. In aftermath, for lack of apt satiation becoming visited, vis-a-vis, the apt parameters, hence, governing the according, of, relief of injunction, thereupon the impugned order rather deserves, no, interference, and, hence deserves to be maintained, and, affirmed. 6. However, at this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the aggrieved plaintiffs, has, made a vigorous contention before this Court, that, (i) the dismissal, through, the impugned order, an application, cast therebefore, under, the provisions, of, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, hence seeking therethrough, the, leave of the Court, to, adduce into evidence, the respective reports of, the Halka Patwari, and, of, the Halka Kanungo, making thereon echoings, vis-a-vis, the plaintiffs, holding possession, of, some portion, of, suit khasra number 92, becoming amenable for interference, (ii) as therethroughs the plaintiffs, had satisfied, vis-avis, theirs holding possession, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, and, (iii) also hence theirs becoming enabled to make an espousal, qua, through adverse possession, theirs acquiring title, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, besides become enabled, to, dislodge, the, presumption of truth, enjoyed by the revenue entries, reflecting the defendants, as allottees, of, the suit khasra numbers. However, the afore submission, is, not ingrained with any aura of veracity, as in the making, of, the afore report(s), hence visible infraction(s), of, the principles, of, natural justice, hence surfaces, in as much as, the afore(s) remained unpreceeded, by any notice hence becoming issued, to, the defendants, rather, for, enabling the latters, to contest the findings borne thereon. Even otherwise, in, making the afore reports, the revenue officer concerned, especially, when they therethrough endeavored, to, scuttle, the valid bestowment, of, valid title, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, upon,the defendants, rather became enjoined to ensure that, unless, the requisite procedural mechanism, hence became recoursed, wherein both the litigants, hence participated, rather, to, refrain to make, the, afore reports, hence prejudicing, the, apposite rights, title or interest, of the defendants, the, recorded owner in possession, of, the suit property. However, the afore caution has become abandoned rather by the revenue officer concerned, rather in making, the, afore reports, and, hence it appears, that the afore reports, are, made at the instance of the plaintiffs, for, scuttling the vigor of the revenue entries, rather holding leverages, vis-a-vis the defendants espousal. However, the afore caution has become abandoned rather by the revenue officer concerned, rather in making, the, afore reports, and, hence it appears, that the afore reports, are, made at the instance of the plaintiffs, for, scuttling the vigor of the revenue entries, rather holding leverages, vis-a-vis the defendants espousal. Consequently, the declining, of, the espoused relief to the plaintiffs, is merit-worthy, and, also given the predominant factum, qua the afore reports, being, not just, or, essential, for, deciding the controversy, appertaining, to, the legitimacy, of, the entries, occurring, in the revenue records, since 1950, wherewithin unrebutted echoings, are made, vis-a-vis, the land becoming initially vested, in, the panchayat, and, thereafter, in, the State of Himachal Pradesh, and, whereafter it became allotted, to, the defendants. Imperatively, also when during the pendency, of, the civil suit, they remained unadduced, whereas, theirs'' during the pendency, of, the apposite appeal cast before the Appellate Court, rather hence surfaced, thereupon they appear to become prepared, in, sequel, to, collusion inter-se the plaintiffs, and, the revenue officer concerned. 7. In view of the above observations, there is no merit in the instant petition, and, the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith. 8. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and, the learned Court concerned, shall decide the matter uninfluenced, by any observation made hereinabove.