JUDGMENT : 1. Draft amendment is allowed. Necessary amendments shall be carried out forthwith. 2. By way of present petition, petitioners have prayed for following reliefs: (A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this petition; (B) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 10.09.2014 passed below Exh.5 and Exh.15 filed in Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 2013 by the Civil Judge, Kodinar and also judgment and order dated 19.12.2018 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.5 of 2018 [originally numbered as 16 of 2014] by the Ld. Additional District Judge, Kodinar and further be pleased to grant interim injunction application of the petitioner Exh.15 filed in Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 2013 and prayers prayed therein; (BB) This Honourbale Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 13.10.2021 passed below Exh.36 in Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 2013 by the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kodinar” (C) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this Petition, Your Lordship may pleased to operation, execution and implementation of order dated 10.09.2004 passed below Exh.5 and Exh.15 filed in Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 2013 by the Civil Judge, Kodinar and also judgment and order dated 19.12.2018 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal, No.5 of 2018 [originally numbered as 16 of 2014] by the Ld. Additional District Judge, Kodinar; (D) Any other and further reliefs as deemed just and proper looking to the facts of this case, may kindly be granted in favour of the appellant, in the interest of justice. 3. Short facts of the present case may be referred as under: That the petitioner No.1 and respondent are brothers. Petitioner No.1, taken care of the respondent since his childhood and incurred all the expenses for him in order to get him settled in life. Petitioner No.1 is serving in police force and he was residing at Surat at the relevant point of time, whereas his brother has permanent residence at village Alidar, Talukar-Kodinar. That respondent has filed Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 2013 praying for declaration and permanent injunction qua suit property being subplot No.185 at Viratnagar, Kodinar against the petitioners. The said suit property is residential premises. That the suit property was acquired from Taluka Panchayat, Kodinar in 1986 admeasuring 83.61.30 sq. meters. That respondent has filed Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 2013 praying for declaration and permanent injunction qua suit property being subplot No.185 at Viratnagar, Kodinar against the petitioners. The said suit property is residential premises. That the suit property was acquired from Taluka Panchayat, Kodinar in 1986 admeasuring 83.61.30 sq. meters. That the petitioners had constructed eight bedroom residential premises after acquiring permission from Kodinar Nagarpalika/Municipality. That respondent has enumerated in the plaint that the sub-plot No.184 is belonging to the petitioners, which is located on the northern side and illegally constructed house on the premises. Apropos the same, the case of the petitioners is that construction was made on both the plots by the petitioner No.2 consisting of eight rooms as mentioned in the Exh.15 application and counter claim to the Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 2013. The petitioners had merged both the plots and constructed the entire residential premises. That on filing of Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 2013 by the respondent, petitioners appeared and filed detailed reply to the suit and interim injunction application. That the petitioner had also filed counter claim with an application for temporary injunction below Exh.15. The Ld. Civil Judge, Kodinar passed a joint order below Exh.5 and Exh.15 whereby Ld. Judge was pleased to allow the Exh.5 application of the respondent and rejected the application of the petitioners below Exh.15. Respondent moved an application at Exh.36 in Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 2013 for implementing the order dated 10.09.2014 passed below Exh.5 and Exh.15 in Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 2013. In the said application, there is no any averment with regard to forceful possession taken over by the present petitioners. However, the learned trial court on the premise that present petitioners have illegally entered into the suit property passed an order for dispossessing the petitioners and their relatives. That in the said application at Exh.36, the respondent has not prayed for the said relief, though the trial court has granted the same. The said order dated 13.10.2021 passed by the trial court is during the pendency of the present proceedings. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kodinar below Exh.5 and Exh.15 in Regular Civil Suit No.04 of 2013, petitioners filed an appeal before the Ld. Additional District Judge, Kodinar being Misc. Civil Appeal No.16 of 2014 (renumbered as Misc. Civil Appeal No.5 of 2018). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kodinar below Exh.5 and Exh.15 in Regular Civil Suit No.04 of 2013, petitioners filed an appeal before the Ld. Additional District Judge, Kodinar being Misc. Civil Appeal No.16 of 2014 (renumbered as Misc. Civil Appeal No.5 of 2018). The said appeal came to be rejected vide order dated 19.12.2018. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 10.09.2014 passed below Exh.5 and Exh.15 filed in Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 2013 by the learned Civil Judge, Kodinar and judgment and order dated 19.12.2018 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.16 of 2014 (new number being Misc. Civil Appeal No.5 of 2018) by the Ld. Additional District Judge, Kodinar, petitioners have preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners and learned advocate for the respondent. 5. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioners that the impugned orders and judgments passed by the courts below are illegal, erroneous, improper and contrary to the well established principle of law. That the conclusions arrived by the courts below are contrary to the facts and law, which have resulted into miscarriage of justice. That first Appellate Court has misread and misinterpreted the documents produced on record and thereby committed grave error in dismissing the application at Exh.15 filed in Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 2013 of the petitioners and allowing the Exh.5 application of the respondent. 5.1 It is further urged that learned Judge ought to have considered the facts that the suit property being a residential property was constructed after merging both the plots i.e. sub-plot Nos.184 and 185. That nowhere in the entire plaint itself, the respondent has stated that the residential premises i.e. the suit property is a single unit and is situated on both the plots. That petitioners filed an application for investigation and appointment of court commissioner in order to cull out the exact status of the suit property, but said application came to be dismissed by the learned Appellate Court. 5.2 It is further urged that there has been gross suppression of facts on behalf of the respondent, but not providing accurate details of the suit property. That residential premises comprises of eight rooms and other basic amenities. As per the description of the property in the plaint, sub-plot No.185 is admeasuring approximately 84 meters. 5.2 It is further urged that there has been gross suppression of facts on behalf of the respondent, but not providing accurate details of the suit property. That residential premises comprises of eight rooms and other basic amenities. As per the description of the property in the plaint, sub-plot No.185 is admeasuring approximately 84 meters. That as per the say of the petitioners said premises is constructed after merging both the plots i.e. sub-plot Nos.184 and 185. To substantiate the said fact petitioners had filed an application at Exh.6 in the appeal for producing additional documents at appellate stage, and said application came to be allowed by the learned Judge. 5.3 That respondent has stated that the respondent is residing in suit property, which itself is not correct. In addition thereto even as per the voter’s list the respondent is residing at village: Alidar, Taluka: Kodinar. That respondent himself has not approached with clean hands and on occasion of this vital fact impugned order deserves to be dismissed. It is further submitted that from the perusal of the application at Exh.36 itself, it emerges that the respondent is not in the possession of the suit property and trying his best to take possession of the suit property with the help of police authorities. That without there being any pleadings, respondent is presenting misconceived facts before the trial Court. That though the learned trial court is made aware about the pendency of present proceedings challenging the orders passed by the trial court and the Appellate Court for interim injunction it was observed in the order that as on today, there is no order in favour of the present petitioners/original defendants, and therefore, original plaintiff is entitled for the relief prayed in the application. That learned trial court has proceeded in a manner which would make present proceedings infructuouos. 5.4 It is further submitted that learned Judge has not appreciated the evidence as adduced by the petitioners in its entirety. Solely on the basis of revenue records and tax receipts qua suit property, both the courts below have passed the impugned orders and judgments in favour of the respondent which are illegal and improper. 5.4 It is further submitted that learned Judge has not appreciated the evidence as adduced by the petitioners in its entirety. Solely on the basis of revenue records and tax receipts qua suit property, both the courts below have passed the impugned orders and judgments in favour of the respondent which are illegal and improper. Ultimately, it is requested by leaned advocate for the petitioners to quash and set aside the order dated 10.09.2014 passed below Exh.5 and Exh.15 filed in Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 2013 by learned Civil Judge, Kodinar and judgment and order dated 19.12.2018 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.5 of 2018 [originally numbered as 16 of 2014] by Ld. Additional District Judge, Kodinar as well as order dated 13.10.2021, passed below Exh.36. 6. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent has strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioners and submitted that concurrent findings of facts recorded by courts below under the application cannot be interfered by this Court unless they are found perverse or illegal. It is further submitted that after hearing the parties and considering the record of the case as well as documentary evidence on record, courts below have decided the matter by way of well reasoned judgment and orders and interim relief applications were rejected, and therefore, the same does not call for any interference in exercise of its extra ordinary supervisory jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the trial court passed an order on 10.09.2014 and a period of about 7 years have passed by now and all throughout the injunction was already in favour of the respondent/original plaintiff of Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 2013. It is further submitted that the suit filed by the respondent is in advance stage of hearing and the parties have submitted their pleadings, documentary evidence etc, and therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. It is further submitted that sub-plot No.185 admeasuring 83.61.30 sq. mtrs of Viratnagar Area of Kodinar was granted to the respondent free of cost under the Government’s benevolent scheme. That respondent with the permission of the Kodinar Nagarpalika has put up the construction of a house consisting of five rooms and lavatories. It is further submitted that respondent is paying taxes/assessment; electricity bills and such receipts were produced on record in the suit by the original plaintiff. That respondent with the permission of the Kodinar Nagarpalika has put up the construction of a house consisting of five rooms and lavatories. It is further submitted that respondent is paying taxes/assessment; electricity bills and such receipts were produced on record in the suit by the original plaintiff. It is further submitted that, however, petitioner No.1, being a police inspector, was not entitled to get the free plot from the Government under the scheme, he is succeeded to get a free plot being sub-Plot No.184 in the name of his wife i.e. petitioner No.2, mischievously. That petitioner No.1 being in police service is highly influential and for protecting his immovable property i.e. residence, respondent was constrained to approach the civil court. It is further submitted that the courts below have verified the record of the case and was pleased to grant interim protection/relief vide Exh.5 of the original plaintiff and application Exh.15 preferred by the petitioners was rightly rejected. It is further submitted that copies of Village Form No.8-A, receipt of payment of revenue assessment, educational cess, property tax to the Nagarpalika, electricity bills paid by the respondents are produced before the trial court standing in the name of the respondent showing his ownership and possession over the suit land. It is further submitted that neighbours of the suit land have also filed their affidavits vide Exh.6 and Exh.7 before the trial court. As the respondents were obstructing or evicting the plaintiffs from the suit property of sub-plot No.185, a police complaint was filed on 18.09.2014 Exh.30 complaining the disobedience of injunction. That in the said process on 14.09.2021, a pursis Exh.54 was filed by the petitioners submitting that they will abide by the order of the court. That sub-plot No.184 was undisputedely allotted to the petitioners and sub-plot No.185 was allotted to the respondent. It is further submitted that both the plots are different, and therefore, the petitioners under the guise of litigation may not be permitted to snatch away, encroach upon the residence of the respondent/plaintiff. Ultimately, it is requested by learned advocate for the respondent to dismiss the present petition. 7. It is further submitted that both the plots are different, and therefore, the petitioners under the guise of litigation may not be permitted to snatch away, encroach upon the residence of the respondent/plaintiff. Ultimately, it is requested by learned advocate for the respondent to dismiss the present petition. 7. Having heard learned advocate for the petitioners and learned advocate for the respondent, perusing the record produced before the court, petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 10.09.2014 passed below Exh.5 and Exh.15 of Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 2013 by learned Principal Civil Judge, Kodinar, which was confirmed by learned Additional District Judge, Kodinar in Misc. Civil Appeal No.5 of 2018 (originally numbered as 16 of 2014) vide order dated 19.12.2018. Thereafter, by way of draft amendment, petitioners challenged the order dated 13.10.2021 passed below Exh.36 in Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 2013 by learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kodinar. From the record, it appears that present petitioners, in Misc. Civil Appeal No.5 of 2018 before the learned Additional District Judge, Kodinar preferred one application Exh.6 with a request to permit them to produce the documents under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. The first appellate court, looking to the provisions of law and after hearing the parties was pleased to allow the application Exh.6 preferred by the present petitioners and permitted to produce the documentary evidence and D.E. list. All the documents produced by the petitioners were also considered by the first Appellate Court while passing the final order in appeal. If we consider the documents produced by the respondent/plaintiff before the trial court at Mark-3/1 to 3/6 and Mark-14/1 to 14/9, it appears that sub-plot No.185 was allotted to the plaintiff free of cost as shown in the Village Form No.-8A (Mark-3/1), name of the original plaintiff was entered in the revenue record that measurement i.e. 83.61.30 sq. mtrs. Another document was produced i.e. Village Form No.2, in which name of the plaintiff was recorded. Tax receipts were also produced by the respondent/plaintiff at Mark-3/3 and 3/4 showing the taxes of the land, paid by the respondent. Kodinar Nagar Palkia has also prepared a statement of assessment produced at Mark-3/5 in the year 2012-13 of sub-plot No.185 in the name of the respondent/plaintiff showing his possession of sub-plot No.185. Tax receipts were also produced by the respondent/plaintiff at Mark-3/3 and 3/4 showing the taxes of the land, paid by the respondent. Kodinar Nagar Palkia has also prepared a statement of assessment produced at Mark-3/5 in the year 2012-13 of sub-plot No.185 in the name of the respondent/plaintiff showing his possession of sub-plot No.185. If we consider the documents produced by the present petitioners/defendants at Mark-14/1 to 14/9, showing the name of defendant No.2 in sub-plot No.184 and having in her possession. Undisputedly, she has paid the taxes and educational tax and revenue fees of sub-plot No.184. It is pertinent to note that plaintiff has not claimed the ownership of the sub-plot No.184. From the documents produced on record, trial court as well as the first appellate court have rightly come to concussion that possession of the suit premises of sub-plot No.185 was with the plaintiff/respondent. There is nothing on record produced by the present petitioners/defendants that they are in possession of sub-plot No.185 or it was allotted to them. Before the first appellate court in Misc. Civil Appeal No.5 of 2018, certain documents were produced by the present petitioners at Mark-27, from serial No.1 to 9. They were electricity bills, 9 photos of marriage of the daughter of the petitioners and 10 photos of the disputed premises, certificate issued by the Alidar Gram Panchayat. From these documents, it cannot be said that petitioners are in possession of the sub-plot No.185 because in none of the documents it was stated that petitioner No.2 is the owner or in possession of the sub-plot No.185. On the contrary, it appears that petitioner No.2 is in possession of sub-plot No.184. From the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, it is not clear that petitioners are in possession of the sub-plot No.185. From the documents produced by the respondent/plaintiff at Mark-14/1 to 14/9, it clearly transpires that respondent is in possession of the sub-plot No.185 and also paid the taxes and other charges of the revenue authorities. From the record, prima facie, it appears that plaintiff/respondent is in possession of this suit premises i.e. sub-plot No.185 and constructed five rooms as averred in the plaint for his residential purpose. From the record, prima facie, it appears that plaintiff/respondent is in possession of this suit premises i.e. sub-plot No.185 and constructed five rooms as averred in the plaint for his residential purpose. It further appears that plaintiff is true owner of sub-plot No.185 and trial court as well as first appellate court rightly allowed the application of the plaintiff and dismissing the application Exh.15 preferred by the present petitioners/defendants. It also appears that vide Exh.36, respondent requested the trial court to provide police bandobast at his cost for compliance of the order passed below Exh.5 by preferring an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. 8. Considering the averments made in the application Exh.36 preferred by the respondent and the order dated 13.10.2021 passed below the application, there is no illegality committed by the trial court in allowing the application, permitting to provide police bandobast at the cost of the respondent for compliance of the order passed below Exh.5 in the suit. 9. In the case of Premji Ratansey Shah and others versus Union of India and others, reported in (1994) 5 SCC Page 547 has observed in Paragraph Nos. 4 and 5, which are as under: “The question, therefore, is whether an injunction can be issued against the true owner. Issuance of an order of injunction is absolutely a discretionary and equitable relief. In a given set of facts, injunction may be given to protect the possession of the owner or person in lawful possession. It is not mandatory that for mere asking such relief should be given. Injunction is a personal right under Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; the plaintiff must have personal interest in the matter. The interest of right not shown to be in existence, cannot be protected by injunction. 5. It is equally settled law that injunction would not be issued against tile true owner. Therefore, the courts below have rightly rejected the relief of declaration and injunction in favour of the petitioners who have no interest in the property. Even assuming that they had any possession, their possession is wholly unlawful possession of a trespasser and an injunction cannot be issued in favour of a trespasser or a person who gained unlawful possession, as against the owner. Pretext of dispute of identity of the land should not be an excuse to claim injunction against true owner.” 10. Even assuming that they had any possession, their possession is wholly unlawful possession of a trespasser and an injunction cannot be issued in favour of a trespasser or a person who gained unlawful possession, as against the owner. Pretext of dispute of identity of the land should not be an excuse to claim injunction against true owner.” 10. Under these circumstances, it is held that prima facie case and balance of convenience are in favour of the respondent to grant interim injunction in respect of the suit property i.e. Sub-Plot No.185 admeasuring 83.61.30 sq. meters, which includes the constructed rooms as alleged by the respondent/plaintiff in the suit. Since the respondents are lawful owners of the Sub-Plot No.185 and when there is no clear material to demonstrate the suit property i.e. subplot No.185 grant of any interim injunction in favour of the present petitioners prayed in their application Exh.15 would certainly cause irreparable loss to the respondents. 11. Considering the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that the order dated 10.09.2014 passed below Exh.5 and Exh.15 in Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 2013 as well as the order dated 19.12.2018 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kodinar in Misc. Civil Appeal No.5 of 2018 as well as order dated 13.10.2021 passed below Exh.36 in Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 2013 do not warrant any interference as the trial court has already granted temporary injunction in respect of the suit property against the present petitioners and confirmed by the first Appellate Court. The interest of the respondent has been sufficiently protected with respect to the possession and ownership of the suit property. 13. In view of the discussions above, the order dated 10.09.2014 passed below Exh.5 and Exh.15 in Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 2013 by learned Civil Judge, Kodinar and judgment and order dated 19.12.2018 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.5 of 2018 by learned Additional District Judge, Kodinar is hereby confirmed as well as order dated 13.10.2021 passed below Exh.36 in Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 2013 by learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kodinar. 14. Therefore, present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of as ordered accordingly. Notice stands discharged. 15. This Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the matter, since the observations have been made at any interim stage of the proceedings.