JUDGMENT 1. Challenging order dtd. 5/8/2015 passed by LXII Additional Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.no.5912/2015 on I.A.nos.3 and 4, these appeals are filed. 2. Appellants herein were plaintiffs and respondents herein were defendants respectively in suit. For sake of convenience, they shall hereinafter be referred to by their rank in original suit. 3. O.S.no.5912/2015 was filed for relief of permanent injunction against defendants from proceeding with formation of road in suit property and to restrain them from interfering with plaintiffs' possession over suit property. 4. In said suit, it was stated that husband of plaintiff no.2 and father of plaintiff no.1-A. Dharmaraj purchased 30 guntas of land bearing Sy.no.89 of B. Narayanapura Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk under registered sale deed dtd. 6/1/2009, from its earlier owner Sri.T.Naraynappa. Thereafter he got it converted for non- agricultural purposes under order dtd. 29/12/1971. Subsequently in 1983, he had constructed shops in said property after obtaining permission. After death of A. Dharmaraj on 20/12/2004, plaintiffs inherited suit property and they were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of same. During August 2010, plaintiffs learnt that a portion of land in Sy.no.89 was acquired for formation of road by defendants no.1 and 2. Upon verification of preliminary notification issued on 30/3/2007, they found that acquired property was other than schedule property. Even in final notification issued on 22/7/2008, plaintiffs found that suit property was outside area under acquisition. 5. Though plaintiffs filed W.P.no.25037/2015 challenging final notification and survey sketch dtd. 9/1/2008, it was disposed of on 26/6/2015 relegating petitioners therein to file civil suit to protect their possession. Hence, plaintiffs filed instant suit. In said suit, they filed I.A.nos.III and IV under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C., against defendant no.1 and defendants no.2 to 7 respectively to restrain them from proceeding to form road during pendency of suit. 6. Upon service of suit summons, only defendants no.1 and 2 entered appearance. Defendants no.3 to 7 were placed ex-parte. Defendant no.2 filed written statement and filed a memo adopting it as objections to I.A.no.IV. In objections, it was stated that as formation of road for use by general public, it could not be obstructed by issuing injunction. It was also stated that plaintiffs had failed to make out prima facie case or balance of convenience for grant of temporary injunction. 7. In objections, it was stated that as formation of road for use by general public, it could not be obstructed by issuing injunction. It was also stated that plaintiffs had failed to make out prima facie case or balance of convenience for grant of temporary injunction. 7. Based on contentions, trial Court framed following points for consideration: "1. Whether plaintiff has made out prima facie case in their favour? 2. Whether balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff? 3. Whether plaintiff would be put to irreparable loss or hardship, if Temporary Injunction a sought is not granted? 4. What order?" 8. After answering points no.1 to 3 in negative it rejected application. 9. Aggrieved thereby, plaintiffs are in appeal. 10. Miss. Aditi Gurjer, appearing for Sri. George Joseph, learned counsel for appellants, submitted that schedule of preliminary notification and final notification indicated a clear deviation insofar as description of southern boundary side. While in preliminary notification, it was mentioned as remaining portion of Sy.no.89, in final notification it was Sy.no.92 with measurement added as 20 X 164 i.e. total 3280 sq.ft. But, schedule of land purchased by plaintiffs was East by Dongaranath Sait's land, West by portion of land in Sy.no.89 retained by vendor, North by road and South by Munivenkatappa's land. She further submitted that at instance of some persons, defendants had altered alignment of road while issuing final notification and proceeded to demolish compound wall constructed around plaintiffs land and therefore, plaintiffs were entitled for injunction. However, trial Court without appreciation of assertions in application and affidavit, rejected same. 11. On other hand, Sri. Pawan Kumar appearing for Sri. H. Devendrappa learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents no.3 to 7 submitted that writ petition filed by plaintiffs challenging acquisition was dismissed on ground that plaintiffs were required to establish their claim that road was formed within plaintiffs land in civil suit. They further submitted that in view of rejection of challenge to acquisition, even if plaintiffs established as above, they would at best be entitled for compensation and therefore, trial Court was justified in rejecting I.A.nos.III and IV. 12. Heard learned counsels. Perused impugned order. Only point that arises for consideration is: "Whether impugned order calls for any interference?" 13. They further submitted that in view of rejection of challenge to acquisition, even if plaintiffs established as above, they would at best be entitled for compensation and therefore, trial Court was justified in rejecting I.A.nos.III and IV. 12. Heard learned counsels. Perused impugned order. Only point that arises for consideration is: "Whether impugned order calls for any interference?" 13. In instant case, plaintiffs allege that though defendants had notified some other land, they formed road by using their land. At outset, it would be relevant to first refer to reasons stated by this Court while rejecting writ petition which are as follows: "It is not in dispute that petitioner is not the person whose name is shown as khathedar in either of the notifications preliminary or final. Though what is sought to be acquired under the said notifications is a portion measuring 20'X164' in Sy.No.89 along with boundaries belonging to T.Govindappa son of Doddathayappa. If petitioner thinks that the boundaries of his property are the very same as that of the acquired land, then he must stand relegated to the civil Court to protect his possession and not seek a writ of certiorari to quash the final notification Annexure-A or survey sketch dtd. 9/1/2008, Annexure-B. Relief to declare illegal the attempt to form a road in the portion of land in Sy.No.89 is unavailable, in the facts and circumstance. Petition rejected." 14. But, on perusal of plaint it does not disclose that prior of filing suit, plaintiffs had got their land surveyed and boundaries demarcated. Thus, whether land acquired by defendants would include plaintiffs land or whether defendants are illegally forming road in plaintiffs land has to be decided only after recording of evidence. And as plaintiffs challenge to land acquisition has been rejected by this Court, they would at best be entitled for compensation. Since it is possible to compensate plaintiffs in terms of money, rejection of application for temporary injunction would not call for any interference. 15. Moreover, when defendants are seeking to perform public duty of forming road for use by general public, rejection of application for grant of temporary injunction cannot be said to be unjustified. Point for consideration is therefore answered in negative. 16. At this stage, learned counsel for appellants submitted that plaintiffs would co-operate for early conclusion of trial and direction may be issued to trial Court for early disposal of suit. Point for consideration is therefore answered in negative. 16. At this stage, learned counsel for appellants submitted that plaintiffs would co-operate for early conclusion of trial and direction may be issued to trial Court for early disposal of suit. Considering said submission, I pass following: ORD E R i. Both appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. ii. Trial Court is directed to expedite disposal of suit in accordance with law.