JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners/plaintiffs have assailed the order passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Una, District Una, H.P. in Civil Miscellaneous Application RBT No. 280-14-2010, titled as The Idol of Sh. Ravidass Mandir, Santokhgarh Vs. Sh. Naresh Kumar and others, dated 13.06.2018, vide which application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioners/plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned Court below, as well as against the judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-II, Una, H.P. in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 28/2018, titled as The Idol of Shri Ravidas Mandir Santokhgarh and others Vs. Naresh Kumar and others, dated 29.03.2018, vide which, an appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Una, District Una, H.P. stood dismissed by the learned Appellate Court. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that petitioners/ plaintiffs have filed a suit i.e. Civil Suit No. 367/14/10 for possession by way of demolition of structure as per site plan qua the suit land situated in village Santokhgarh, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. as well as for permanent injunction as a consequential relief, restraining the defendants to raise any further structure upon the suit land or, alienate the suit land. An alternative prayer is also made in the suit for setting aside the alienation, if any, done by the defendants. Alongwith the suit, an application stood filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for temporary injunction against defendants during the pendency of the suit. 3. The application stood dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 13.06.2018 by interalia holding that the applicants/plaintiffs had failed to make out a prima facie case alongwith balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury caused was also not proved by the applicants. 4. 3. The application stood dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 13.06.2018 by interalia holding that the applicants/plaintiffs had failed to make out a prima facie case alongwith balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury caused was also not proved by the applicants. 4. An appeal preferred by the applicants/present petitioners against the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Una, District Una, H.P. was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court by holding that the learned trial court had rightly appreciated the pleadings and record and no fault could be attributed to the findings returned by the learned Trial Court, which called for no interference. 5. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners have filed the present petition. 6. A perusal of the order and judgment passed by the learned Courts below demonstrates that there was an earlier litigation between the parties with regard to the suit land and judgment and decree in favour of the present respondents now stands assailed by the petitioners in the civil suit inter alia on the ground that the said judgment and decree are void ab initio as the plaintiff is a minor. Record further demonstrates, as has been taken note of by the learned Appellate Court also, that there has been an adjudication between the same parties/their predecessor-in-interest, on the same subject matter vide judgment and decree dated 24.08.1953. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.1953 before the Appellate Court and the appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.04.1954 and a regular second appeal was also dismissed by the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab at Chandigarh, vide judgment dated 26.09.1958. Besides other things, this factor weighed with both the learned Courts below while dismissing the application filed by the present petitioners under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of temporary injunction and the appeal. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents apprised the Court that an execution petition was filed for the execution of the judgment and decree earlier passed by the Court. Objections were filed against the execution petition, which stood dismissed on 16.02.1999 and order of dismissal of the objections against the execution petition was assailed and maintained up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Objections were filed against the execution petition, which stood dismissed on 16.02.1999 and order of dismissal of the objections against the execution petition was assailed and maintained up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. This fact could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the order and judgment passed by the learned Courts below, respectively. 9. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, the scope of interference of this Court is limited under circumstances where a Court either does not exercises jurisdiction vested in it or exercises jurisdiction vested in it with material irregularity or exercises jurisdiction not vested in it. Here it is not a case where the learned Courts below either exercised jurisdiction not vested in them or not exercised jurisdiction vested in them. A perusal of the orders passed by the learned Courts below demonstrate that they are reasoned orders and findings stands returned by both the learned Courts below after taking into consideration the respective contentions of both the parties. It is not in dispute that with regard to the suit property, there was an earlier litigation between the parties which has been decided in favour of the present respondents. It is also not in dispute that the objections filed against the execution petition also were dismissed by the learned Executing Court and the order of dismissal was upheld up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. That being the case, now fresh suit which has been filed by the present petitioners for declaration that the earlier judgment and decree are bad in law, prima facie does not confers upon them a right to be granted interim relief as prayed for. As earlier suit stands decided against the present petitioners, therefore, prima facie case does not exists in their favour nor balance of convenience can be said to be in their favour. On the other hand, in case, interim, as prayed for, is granted, then in the considered view of this Court, it is the respondents who will suffer from irreparable loss. This is exactly what has been held by both the learned Courts below in the orders which stand assailed by way of this petition. On the other hand, in case, interim, as prayed for, is granted, then in the considered view of this Court, it is the respondents who will suffer from irreparable loss. This is exactly what has been held by both the learned Courts below in the orders which stand assailed by way of this petition. In these circumstances, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the order and judgment passed by both the learned Courts below call for no interference and accordingly, the present petition is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.