JUDGMENT S.Vishwajith Shetty, J. - The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the order dated 10.08.2020 passed on I.A.No.1/2020 in M.A.No.9/2020 by the Court of IIAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot vide Annexure-G. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioners who are plaintiffs before the Trial Court in O.S.No.29/2020 filed the said suit against respondents herein for the relief of declaration of their title, mandatory injunction to remove the illegal construction, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from putting up construction over the suit schedule property. 4. In the said suit, after service of notice, defendants had entered appearance and filed their written statements. In the said written statement, the defendants have stated as to how they have acquired title and possession of the suit schedule property. They have also stated that after purchase, the suit schedule property was converted for non-agricultural purpose and thereafterwards they have obtained necessary building sanction plan and licence from the competent authority for construction and on the strength of the same, they have been putting up construction. 5. The plaintiff had filed I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.29/2020 seeking an order of temporary injunction against the defendants from putting up construction over the suit schedule property. The defendants filed a memo stating that the written statement filed by them may be treated as objections to the application I.A.No.1. The Trial Court thereafterwards heard the parties on the application I.A.No.1, and by its order dated 12.06.2020 rejected I.A.No.1. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs had filed M.A.No.9.2020 before the II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot and in the said appeal, I.A.No.1, was filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC for short) seeking order of temporary injunction during the pendency of the appeal. The said application was rejected by the Appellate Court on 10.08.2020. Being aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the Appellate Court is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He submits that he was not present on the date when the order was passed and therefore he had no opportunity to argue on his application. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the Appellate Court is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He submits that he was not present on the date when the order was passed and therefore he had no opportunity to argue on his application. He submits that there are triable issues in the suit and if the respondents are permitted to carry on constructions in the suit schedule property, the plaintiffs will be put to hardship. The petitioner s counsel in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharwal Kehwaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot v. Baldev Dass, (2004) AIRSCW 6333 . 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Courts below have concurrently held against the petitioners. He also submits that the plaintiffs have not produced any material before the Trial Court to substantiate their title over the suit schedule property. Except the revenue entries which stood in the name of their ancestors for the period from 1940 to 1950, there is absolutely no other material available on record in support of their case. From the pleadings and the prayer of the plaintiffs, it is very clear that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property. The construction is now put up by the defendants after obtaining necessary sanction and licence from the competent authority and the defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on the basis of the title deeds. He submits that the plaintiffs have failed to make out any prima-facie case and therefore, the Courts below are justified in rejecting the prayer of the plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunction. 8. I have heard the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsel for parties to the lis. 9. From a perusal of the material available on record, it is very clear that except the revenue entries in respect of the suit schedule property, which stood in the name of the plaintiffs alleged ancestors for the period from 1940 to 1950, no other document is produced by the plaintiffs to prove their title over the suit schedule property. Further, from the pleadings and the nature of prayer made in the suit, it is very clear that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property. Further, from the pleadings and the nature of prayer made in the suit, it is very clear that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the defendants have come with a specific case as to how they have derived title over the suit schedule property. They have also stated that after acquiring title over the suit schedule property, they have got it converted for non-agricultural purpose and they have obtained necessary building sanction plan and construction permission from the concerned authorities and it is only on the strength of the same, the construction is being put up. The photograph of the building now constructed by the defendants is also made available to the Court. 10. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kashi Math Samsthan and another v. Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy and another, (2010) AIR SC 296 has held that if the party is unable to prove prima-facie case, injunction cannot be granted even if such party makes out a case of balance of convenience and irreparable injury. 11. In the case of M. P. Housing Board Vs. Kishan Lal Mulani, (2005) AIR SC 1863 the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed that an interim injunction at the initial stage of the project would result in the total collapse of the entire project. 12. In the case on hand, the plaintiffs have failed to make out a prima-facie case. Except certain revenue entries, which stood in the name of their alleged ancestors for the period from 1940 to 1950 there is absolutely no material available on record in support of their title. Further, admittedly, the entries stand in the name of the defendants from the year 1950 onwards till date. The said entries have not been questioned by the petitioners at any point of time. 13. The Trial Court while considering the application I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC has observed that the plaintiffs have not produced any document to show that the properties belong to their ancestors. Even the Appellate Court has observed that no proof of document is produced by the plaintiffs to show that the suit schedule property is their ancestral property. Even the Appellate Court has observed that no proof of document is produced by the plaintiffs to show that the suit schedule property is their ancestral property. The Appellate Court has also observed that the photographs produced by the plaintiffs will prima facie show that the defendants are in possession of the property and they are putting up constructions on the same. Therefore, it is very clear that the petitioners have not made out a prima facie case for the purpose of granting an order of temporary injunction their favour. 14. The submission of the petitioners that they were not heard in the matter and their advocate was not present on the date of order is meritless and the same deserves to be rejected because the order of the appellate court reads otherwise. 15. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust referred supra relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners is not applicable to the present case. In the case on hand, the defendants have started construction after obtaining permission and sanction plan from the concerned authorities. The photographs available on record would go to show that substantial investment is already been made by the defendants to put up construction. Therefore, at this stage, if the defendants are restrained from putting up further construction definitely they will be put to loss. Having regard to the fact that the defendants will be put to hardship and loss in the event if they are restrained from putting up futher construction in the suit schedule property, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust referred supra would not be applicable in the present case. 16. On the other hand, in view of the law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Kashi Math Samsthan and M. P. Housing Board referred supra, since the plaintiffs have failed to make out a prima-facie case, I am of the considered view that the plaintiffs are not entitled for an order of temporary injunction and the Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the I.A.No.1 in M.A.No.9/2020. 17. The writ petition is therefore devoid of any merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed.