ORDER : A.J. Shastri, J. 1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking quashment of order dated 20th April, 2018 passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Bhavnagar at Mahuva below Application Exh. 11 in M.C.A. No. 3 of 2018. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is residing in the suit property which was registered in the name of his grand-father viz. Abdulbhai. That, after demise of his grandfather, the petitioner has all throughout maintained the suit property and administered the same. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had purchased the property on the opposite side, after leaving 10 to 12 ft. road, they are now raising commercial construction in the name of R.K. Plaza by demolishing the old house, without seeking any legal sanction, as required under the law. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of such illegal construction having been made, the petitioner tried to restrain the respondents by issuing legal notices, however, when such attempt failed to bring result, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction for before the Additional Civil Judge, Mahuva, being Regular Civil Suit No. 366 of 2017 with an application for interim injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 4. It is further the case of the petitioner that the application moved by him under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC to add Shri. Rafiqbhai Karimbhai Bagot and Mr. Mansudbhai Gafarbhai Malek, as the defendants, came to be allowed by the trial Court along with an application made under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC to amend the plaint. That, the trial Court, after considering the reply affidavit and rejoinder, dismissed the application vide Order dated 21st February, 2018. It is the say of the petitioner that Misc. Civil Application No. 3 of 2018 was moved against the said order came to be dismissed on 20th April, 2018 by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Bhavnagar [Camp Mahuva] below Exh. 11, giving rise to the present proceeding. 5. Learned advocate Mr. It is the say of the petitioner that Misc. Civil Application No. 3 of 2018 was moved against the said order came to be dismissed on 20th April, 2018 by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Bhavnagar [Camp Mahuva] below Exh. 11, giving rise to the present proceeding. 5. Learned advocate Mr. N.K. Majmudar appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that both the Courts below have failed to consider the important aspect as to the petitioner being the most affected party and therefore, he has locus standi to file the suit. It is further submitted by learned advocate that both the Courts below have failed to consider substantial error of facts, while dismissing interim injunction application that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had purchased property on the opposite side, after leaving 10 to 12 ft. road of the property, and they have been raising illegal commercial construction without any valid sanction from the competent local authority. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents have not provided sufficient parking facilities to the shop owners which would create perpetual nuisances for the petitioner whose property is situated at a distance of only 10 to 12 fts., and therefore, has prayed to admit this petition and grant interim injunction, restraining the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 from raising further construction of a commercial complex. 6. Having heard learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and having gone through the material on record, it appears that both the Courts below have concurrently held against the petitioner and having not found any documentary evidence, no interim order was passed and not in any manner, the petitioner is being affected. After analyzing the documentary evidence, the Courts below have arrived at the concurrent finding that no case is made out. At this juncture, the Court deems it proper to reproduce the paragraph Nos. 18 and 19 of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge which reads as under:- "18. I have read the documentary evidence, papers, pleading and citation produced by the parties, Looking to the fact of the present case, Plaintiff has been filed the present suit for restraining the defendants for further unauthorized construction. 18 and 19 of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge which reads as under:- "18. I have read the documentary evidence, papers, pleading and citation produced by the parties, Looking to the fact of the present case, Plaintiff has been filed the present suit for restraining the defendants for further unauthorized construction. Looking to the written statement submitted by the defendant No. 3 (Exhibit-77), it is made clear that, there is not any permission granted by the Mahuva Nagar Palika, and in support of this plaintiff produced the notice issued by the defendant No. 3 to the defendant No. 4 on 29.6.2017 and 1.8.2017. Looking to the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff, it is clear that, Plaintiff has produced nothing documents regarding ownership of his grand father property even defendant Nos. 4, 5 raise the issue in their written statement produced vide Exbibit-79, plaintiff has not mentioned the any word on this aspect in their counter-affidavit produced vide Exhibit-83. During the oral argument, plaintiff has not mentioned any word regarding title of the suit property and in which manner he administered the suit property of his late grandfather, so for prove prima facie case, plaintiff must establish his case on his own leg. It is clear on the fact of the present case that, defendant Nos. 4, 5 raising the unauthorized construction over the suit premises but plaintiff not mentioned the true description of the suit property in the suit. Plaintiff even not produced any affidavit of the co-neighbor or resident of the local area for establishing his case. Looking to the documentary evidence and perusal of the records of the case, plaintiff failed to produce any documents regarding title of the suit property on which he came before the Court for protecting his right of way and privacy over the suit property. I have read the citation of the Shiv Kumar Chadha etc. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1993) 3 SCC 161 and accept the legal proposition held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, but looking to the fact of the present case, I respectfully submit that, above citation would not apply to the present case because, here in this case, plaintiff claim as administrator of the suit property but in documentary evidence plaintiff not produced any single document of title of the suit property nor provide the pedigree of his grand father. Plaintiff further failed to establish in which manner plaintiff connected to the suit property and how his right will be curtailed if ad interim injunction will not be granted. 19. So, looking to the fact and circumstance of the present cases, it is clear from the documentary evidence that, plaintiff has not made out his prima facie case, and looking to the letter produced by the plaintiff vide marks 4/1 to 4/7, plaintiff, has not produced any single document regarding resident of the plaintiff over suit property as claimed in the suit, so looking to the fact and circumstance of the present case, plaintiff has failed to establish prima facie case in his favour, therefore, I decide issue No. 1 in negative. When there is no prima facie case proved by the plaintiff, there will be no balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff, and if no balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff, there will be no irreparable loss to the plaintiff. Hence, in view of the above discussion, the plaintiff is not entitled to get ad interim injunction as prayed for and hence, point Nos. 1 to 3 are decided in negative and I pass the following order in the interest of justice. “ORDER” 1. Present application filed at Exhibit-5 is hereby rejected. 2. Earlier order passed below Exhibit-31 for "maintaining status quo of the suit property till further order" is here by vacated. 3. There shall be no order as to cost." 7. The said order was also examined by the Appellate Court on the basis of the material available with it and then arrived at findings and concurrently held that no case is made out. 8. This Court has examined the issue and is of the considered opinion that the Courts below have exercised the discretion and after analyzing the documentary evidence, the conclusion is arrived at. As a result of this, there is no perversity reflecting in the orders of the lower Court as well as Appellate Court. 9. 8. This Court has examined the issue and is of the considered opinion that the Courts below have exercised the discretion and after analyzing the documentary evidence, the conclusion is arrived at. As a result of this, there is no perversity reflecting in the orders of the lower Court as well as Appellate Court. 9. Additionally, this Court is mindful of the observations made by the Apex Court on issue of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction which is reported in Sameer Suresh Gupta v. Rahul Kumar Agarwal (2013) 9 SCC 374 : (AIR Online 2013 SC 207) and relying upon the paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment, this Court is of the view that even otherwise no case is made to interfere and the present petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed and accordingly the same stands dismissed with no order as to cost.