JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the order dated 29/5/2021 passed by Addl. District Judge No.4, Bikaner, whereby, the application filed by the respondent-applicant-plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been allowed and temporary injunction has been granted restraining the appellant-company from executing any work in the land indicated in para 2 of the application and to maintain status quo. 2. The suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (‘the Act, 1963’) and for permanent injunction inter alia with the submissions that plaintiff has 1/6th share in the land ad measuring 18.94 hectares situated in village Daudsar, Patwar Halka, Jamsar comprised in Khasra no. 215, 421, 458, 709/420, 710/417, 711/422 and 792/459. It was claimed that on the said land, the plaintiff had his possession and cultivation. It was alleged that defendant company is engaged in developing solar project at village Daudsar and other places and around the land of the plaintiff it is executing the work of solar project, resulting in lands getting converted into non-agriculture from agriculture. 3. It was alleged that the defendant on 18/3/2021 has taken possession of the land; the plaintiff is deprived of cultivating the land, putting it to use and developing the same. Indications were made that in the land in question, Akram, Jalaludin, Noor Jahan, Baby, Barkat Khan and Hazi Khan have share, which was joint and undivided, however, the defendant company without partition among the land holders by metes and bounds took possession belonging to Akram, Jalaludin, Noor Jahan, Baby, Barkat Khan and Hazi Khan and has started work of constructing solar plant. It was also alleged that the defendant was working against the Rules and Rajasthan Solar Energy Policy, 2020. The plaintiff was entitled to return back of his land immediately. It was also indicated that plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction against the defendant not to act against the parameters for protection of environment and without taking other security measures. It was claimed that issues of balance of convenience and irreparable injury are also in his favour as he cannot be deprived of use of his land. It was indicated that the suit has been filed within limitation as possession was taken on 18/3/2021 and within six months the suit has been filed. 4. It was claimed that issues of balance of convenience and irreparable injury are also in his favour as he cannot be deprived of use of his land. It was indicated that the suit has been filed within limitation as possession was taken on 18/3/2021 and within six months the suit has been filed. 4. Based on the above averments, it was prayed that possession of the land be restored and permanent injunction be granted. 5. Along with the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC was filed seeking temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. In the application after reiterating the averments made in the plaint, it was prayed that till the decision of the suit, without partition of the land by metes and bounds, the respondent should not execute any work on the land. 6. The defendant-appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. However, the said application was rejected on 8/4/2021 against which a revision petition is pending consideration before this Court. 7. A reply to the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC was filed denying the averments made in the application. It was contended that the plaintiff-applicant never had possession of the property and he has not been dispossessed at any point of time, therefore, the suit and the application were liable to be dismissed. 8. In additional pleas, it was claimed that the suit was barred under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (‘the Act, 1955’) and Section 41 (h) of the Act, 1963 and on that count the application was liable to be dismissed. 9. On facts, it was indicated that out of 18.94 Hectares of agricultural land, Jalaludin, Hazi Khan, Barkat Khan, Noor Jahan, Bhapia had 5/6th share and legal representatives of Chotu had 1/6th share. Bhapia gifted his 1/6th share to Barkat Khan and the khatedars executed registered lease deeds executed between July, 2019 to February, 2020 for a period of 30 years in favour of defendant company. It was claimed that possession of the entire undivided 1/6th share of the land belonging to Barkat Khan was handed over to the company on 15/8/2020 and for rest 1/6th share the lease deed was to be executed and since then the defendant was in possession of the property. It was claimed that possession of the entire undivided 1/6th share of the land belonging to Barkat Khan was handed over to the company on 15/8/2020 and for rest 1/6th share the lease deed was to be executed and since then the defendant was in possession of the property. It was claimed that the defendant has executed huge project for setting up solar power plant including civil work etc. Along with reply large number of documents emphasizing the fact that plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property were filed and that the entire land was/is in possession of the defendant and that in case any injunction is granted, the defendant would suffer irreparable injury, the plaintiff had no cause inasmuch as the suit itself was not maintainable and balance of convenience was in its favour and prayed that the application be dismissed. 10. The trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiff claims 1/6th share in the disputed property and the company having registered lease deed qua 5/6th share claims possession of entire 18.94 hectares of land. The plaintiff is khatedar of the land and from photographs and documents it appears that on the disputed land including other land, on which solar project of defendant company has been established and working, wherein, the construction and boundary wall work is over, and as such the company has claimed its work etc. on entire suit land and other Khasras. Barkat Khan transferred his 1/6th share to Amrit Pal Sandhu, who on 7/3/2021 transferred the same to the plaintiff and as to whether the possession of the land was transferred on 15/8/2020 to the company or the plaintiff was dispossessed on 18/3/2021 was a matter of evidence and as the plaintiff was found owner of 1/6th share in the land and several issues raised in the suit requires leading of evidence, no definite conclusion can be drawn at this stage and as the plaintiff had share in the property, there was prima facie case in his favour. 11. 11. While considering the aspects of balance of convenience and irreparable injury, the trial court came to the conclusion that the balance of convenience was in restraining the company from working and from maintaining status quo without there being any partition by metes and bounds as in case there is any change in the suit property, the purpose of filing the suit would come to and end and the plaintiff would suffer more, which may not be compensated in terms of money and consequently granted temporary injunction, as noticed hereinbefore. 12. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellant made vehement submissions that from a bare reading of the plaint, it was apparent that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property and the basic requirement of Section 6 of the Act i.e. dispossession without adopting due process of law has not even been alleged in the plaint. 13. Submissions were made that despite specific case of the appellant that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property as claimed by him and sufficient material in this regard was produced on record, the trial court failed to return any finding, even prima facie that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property at any point of time. 14. Submissions were made that the lease deeds were executed in favour of the appellant over a period of time and the appellant has also executed huge work over the land in question when the plaintiff purchased the land on 7/3/2021 and looking to the nature of appellant’s possession, the plaintiff could not have taken possession of the property, the suit has been filed by claiming that within 11 days i.e. on 18/3/2021 he has been dispossessed. The possession on the face of it was only paper possession and for lack of any proof with regard to taking possession/dispossession, and trial court having failed to record any finding on this aspect, there was apparently no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and, therefore, no injunction could have been granted. 15. The possession on the face of it was only paper possession and for lack of any proof with regard to taking possession/dispossession, and trial court having failed to record any finding on this aspect, there was apparently no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and, therefore, no injunction could have been granted. 15. Submissions were made that order passed by the trial court is absolutely vague inasmuch as the appellant has been restrained from executing the work at the site, which has resulted in plaintiff seeking to interfere in all kinds of activities being undertaken by the company by making complaints with the police and revenue authorities and the said authorities for no reason, based on the vague order passed by the trial court, is interfering with the work of the appellant company, resulting in huge day to day loss to the company, which financial loss in a suit of present nature cannot be compensated. 16. Submissions were made that the trial court did not deal with the aspect of balance of convenience and irreparable injury and in a cryptic manner has jumped to the conclusion on the said aspects, which has resulted in grave injustice to the appellant, and therefore also the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 17. Submissions were made that the plaintiff has share of about 7.80 Acres of land and even presently more than that land at the site is lying vacant, on which right of the plaintiff can be protected. Submissions were also made that appellant is prepared to keep the said portion vacant till the disposal of the suit. 18. During the course of submissions, based on the above assertion regarding the availability of vacant land, on the direction of the court, additional affidavit has been filed indicating that about 7.80 Acres of unused land situated in various khasras is available and that essentially the work pertaining to HT cabling, which needs to cross through Khasra no. 421 & 711/422, its testing and finishing work at PSS were left to be done. A map indicating the available unused land has also been placed on record. 19. It is also submitted that no proof whatsoever regarding possession of the plaintiff was placed on record except for the copy of Jamabandi and sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. 20. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contested the submissions. A map indicating the available unused land has also been placed on record. 19. It is also submitted that no proof whatsoever regarding possession of the plaintiff was placed on record except for the copy of Jamabandi and sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. 20. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contested the submissions. It was submitted that the land in question i.e. 1/6th share was transferred by Barkat Khan to one Amrit Pal Sandhu on 20/7/2020 and said Amrit Pal Sandhu transferred the said 1/6th share to the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 7/3/2021, the plaintiff came in possession of the land, however on 18/3/2021 he has been dispossessed from the land in question and, therefore, the plaintiff was forced to file suit under Section 6 of the Act for restoration of his possession. 21. Submissions have been made that plea raised regarding the suit being barred under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the fact that plaintiff allegedly was not in possession over the suit property were incorrect and the trial court has rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Submissions have been made that admittedly the appellant only has right in 5/6th portion of the land, which is of joint khatedari of several persons including the plaintiff and qua 1/6th share it has no right and as such the appellant is not entitled to any relief from this Court. 22. Submissions have been made that as the respondent-plaintiff has been dispossessed from the land in question and the appellant-company is proceeding with changing the nature of the entire land, the trial court was justified in granting injunction. Submissions have also been made that once the issue of prima facie case was decided in favour of the plaintiff, the finding on issues pertaining to balance of convenience and irreparable injury as recorded by the trial court, cannot be faulted inasmuch as once the plaintiff has ownership over 1/6th share in the property, he cannot be dispossessed of the same without due process of law and till such time the suit is decided, the suit property is required to be protected. 23. Submissions were also made that at best the trial court may be directed to expedite the decision on the suit and the order passed by the trial court does not call for any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 23. Submissions were also made that at best the trial court may be directed to expedite the decision on the suit and the order passed by the trial court does not call for any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 24. Under the directions of the court, the respondent-plaintiff has also filed an additional affidavit and has claimed that he was handed over possession of land in Khasra no. 421 only. A map showing the portion claimed to be in possession of the plaintiff before alleged dispossession has also been placed on record. 25. I have considered the submissions made by leaned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record along with the additional affidavits as filed under the directions of the Court. 26. The fundamental aspect relevant at the stage of application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC is regarding the right of the plaintiff in the suit property. It is an admitted case of the appellant company also that they have lease deeds qua 5/6th share in the land ad measuring 18.94 hectares. The appellant company has also not indicated as under what right, it could remain in possession of the entire land including 1/6th share belonging to the plaintiff. 27. However, as the nature of the suit is such, wherein, the plaintiff has alleged dispossession without due process of law from a portion of the land, the above aspect, presently, in view of the appellant’s claim being in possession of the entire land irrespective of having lease deed qua 5/6th share in the land, is not of much relevance as it is well settled that in a suit under Section 6 of the Act, the issue of title is irrelevant. 28. 28. Large amount of pictures, which have been produced on record, show permanent and temporary constructions at the site and not only this, in fact the appellant company relying on a ‘Mauka Fard’ dated 29/5/2020, wherein, the Patwari Jamsar has made identification/demarcation, claims to be in possession of in all as much as 795 hectares of land including the suit land i.e. 18.94 hectares of land, as such the fact that on 7.3.2021 when the plaintiff purchased the land, it prima facie cannot be believed that he was unaware of the fact of appellant’s huge presence at the site and, therefore, the claim made by the plaintiff, though missing in the pleadings before the trial court, but by way of additional affidavit pursuant to the directions of the Court, that he was handed over possession of land specifically in Khasra no. 421, cannot be believed. 29. The submissions made that as there was no partition, the plaintiff has right in the entire land ad measuring 18.94 hectares cannot be countenanced beyond a point inasmuch as similarly, the appellant company also would have bonafide claim in the entire land having lease deeds in its favour qua 5/6th portion of the land ad measuring 18.94 hectares. 30. In the above circumstances, the fact regarding possession of the plaintiff and his alleged dispossession, would require adjudication by the court during trial, once the parties lead evidence on the said aspect as the same is the core question to be decided in the suit and presently based on the material available on record, this Court would not hazard recording a finding on the said aspect. 31. In these circumstances, the interest of the parties to the suit have to be protected during the pendency of the suit and as such the fact that the trial court found a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, essentially on account of his title and claim of possession, cannot be faulted, despite the fact that the suit is under Section 6 of the Act. 32. Finding a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff is not the end of the matter as the court is then required to record finding on balance of convenience and irreparable injury. 32. Finding a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff is not the end of the matter as the court is then required to record finding on balance of convenience and irreparable injury. The trial court, despite the fact that there was lot of material produced by the appellant company indicating the status of the land in question and the fact that it had raised huge construction and had invested huge funds, did not advert to the said aspect, though had specifically noticed the fact that the company had executed construction work and constructed boundary wall. Non consideration of the material available on the said aspect and jumping to the conclusion regarding balance of convenience and irreparable injury by the trial court cannot be approved. Not only this, the trial court then went to pass the following order: ^^vkns’k% 20- vr% ÁkFkhZ dk mDr vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk ÁkFkZuk i= fo:) vÁkFkhZ Lohdkj fd;k tkdj bl vk'k; dh vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tkrh gS fd rk&QSlyk ewy okn vÁkFkhZ dEiuh ÁkFkZuk i= dh pj.k la[;k nks esa of.kZr Hkwfe ftlesa ÁkFkhZ dk 1@6 fgLlk gS] esa dksbZ dk;Z u djsa o ekeyk gktk esa ;Fkkor~ fLFkfr cuk;s j[ksaA** (Emphasis supplied) 33. By the said order, the court ordered that on the land indicated in para 2 of the plaint i.e. entire 18.94 hectares of land in which the plaintiff had 1/6th share, no work should be executed and that status quo be maintained. 34. Passing of above order, when admittedly over the part of the land ad measuring 18.94 hectares, the appellant company had constructed its power plant and was in the process of completing the same, ordering for stopping of entire work cannot in any manner be justified or approved inasmuch as, as noticed hereinbefore, 5/6th share in the said land is on lease with the appellant company. 35. The events subsequent to passing of the order, which have been placed on record by both the parties reflect the consequence of the said order, wherein, entire work of the appellant has been sought to be put on hold by the revenue authorities with the aid of police authorities seeking to implement the order passed by the trial court. 36. The events subsequent to passing of the order, which have been placed on record by both the parties reflect the consequence of the said order, wherein, entire work of the appellant has been sought to be put on hold by the revenue authorities with the aid of police authorities seeking to implement the order passed by the trial court. 36. Besides the fact that interference by the police and revenue authorities for purportedly implementing an injunction, in which proceedings they are not parties, cannot be appreciated, passing of a blanket order without considering its implications, cannot be sustained. 37. As the appellant has undertaken huge construction work and invested huge funds, in case it is not permitted to continue/complete its work, the same necessarily would result in irreparable injury to the appellant and in those circumstances, it cannot be said that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff alone. However, it also cannot be said that the plaintiff is not entitled to any protection. 38. From the additional affidavits, which have been produced on record, while the plaintiff has claimed his entire so called possession in Khasra no. 421, which aspect, looking to the existing construction over the said Khasra, has already been found doubtful hereinbefore, the appellant has indicated vacant land ad measuring 7.80 Acre in the map (Annex.2) filed along with additional affidavit, which is connected by road as well and have undertaken not to use the aforesaid 7.8 hectares unused land and to keep the same intact. 39. Though learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff disputed the fact that the appellant company requires or was in possession of the portion of Khasra No. 421, as indicated in the map and made submissions that there was lot of temporary construction by placing removable iron shelters, the said aspect cannot be determined at this stage. 40. 39. Though learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff disputed the fact that the appellant company requires or was in possession of the portion of Khasra No. 421, as indicated in the map and made submissions that there was lot of temporary construction by placing removable iron shelters, the said aspect cannot be determined at this stage. 40. In over all circumstances of the case, the interest of justice would be served in case the appellant-company is directed to maintain status quo pertaining to the land ad measuring 7.80 Acre as indicated as ‘unused’ by them in map (Annex.2) filed with the additional affidavit and to undertake that in case any finding is returned by the trial court that the plaintiff was in possession/in possession of any specific portion of land, and orders for delivery of possession of the said portion, they would deliver vacant possession of the said portion to the plaintiff. 41. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The order passed by the trial court dated 29/5/2021 is set aside to the extent the appellant company has been prohibited from undertaking any work on the land indicated in para 2 of the application for temporary injunction. Instead, it is directed that the appellant-company shall maintain status quo pertaining to the land ad measuring 7.80 Acres indicated as ‘unused’ by it in the map (Annex.2) filed with the additional affidavit and it would be required of the appellant to file an undertaking before the trial court within three days that in case any finding is returned by the trial court in the suit that the plaintiff was in possession/in possession of any specific portion of land and the court orders for delivery of possession of the said portion, it would deliver vacant possession of the said portion to the plaintiff. The order for maintaining status quo passed by the trial court shall also be understood in the above context only. 42. Looking to the nature of the dispute, it is expected of the trial court to proceed with the matter with utmost expedition. No order as to costs.