JUDGMENT : 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs : “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed, A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction order may kindly be issued and order dated 12.5.2023 passed in civil misc. case no.08/2023 titled as Banshilal Vs Iliyas & Anr and the order dated 03.06.2023 passed in civil appeal no.8/2023 titled as Banshilal vs Iliyas & ors may kindly be quashed and set aside. B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction order may kindly issued, the application annex 2 preferred by the petitioner under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC may kindly be allowed as prayed and the respondents may kindly be restrained by way of the Temporary injunction as prayed in the application till the final decision of the suit. C. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem it just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be issued. 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court, by learned counsel of the petitioner, are that the petitioner instituted a suit for permanent & mandatory injunction and in regard to illegal construction, along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC against the respondents before the learned Civil Judge, Phalodi, stating therein that the petitioner is having a land situated at Nagaur-Phalodi Main Road, Village Khichan, Tehsil Phalodi, patta no.4 wherefor was issued on 05.06.1996 by the Gram Panchayat Khichan. 2.1. It was further stated in the suit that the respondents are bent upon to raise illegal construction, contrary to the lay out plan issued by the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner is having a title over plot no.1, and thus, the respondents have no right to raise the construction over the land in question. 2.2. The learned Court below vide order dated 31.03.2023 passed the ad-interim order to maintain the status quo in regard to the land in question, till filing of the written statement by the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents filed the written statement to the temporary injunction application. 2.3. 2.2. The learned Court below vide order dated 31.03.2023 passed the ad-interim order to maintain the status quo in regard to the land in question, till filing of the written statement by the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents filed the written statement to the temporary injunction application. 2.3. The learned Court below appointed the Survey Commissioner for conducting the site inspection to ascertain the actual position and status of the land in question, and the Commissioner submitted the survey report; thereafter, the learned Court below vide the impugned order dated 12.05.2023 rejected the temporary injunction application of the petitioner. 2.4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.05.2023, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC before the learned Additional District Judge, Phalodi, District Jodhpur, but the same was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide the impugned order dated 03.06.2023. Thus, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present case not only pertains to a dispute regarding possession, but the question of tittle is also involved herein, which can only be decided after due collection of the evidence. It was further submitted that the petitioner raised a serious question of law before the learned Courts below, but the learned Courts below declined to duly appreciate the same, vide the impugned orders, thus committed an error of law. 3.1. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner is having the lawful title over the land in question and the patta therefor was issued by the Gram Panchayat concerned; the respondents are having the patta no. 419 which is apparently for different location, and therefore, the respondents have no right to raise any construction over the land in question, which belongs to the present petitioner. 3.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Court below wrongly observed that the petitioner is not in possession of the land in question, and therefore in absence thereof, the injunction sought for cannot be granted. 3.3. Learned counsel also submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that at the stage of the determination of the prima facie case, there is no requirement to establish a title, and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below are not sustainable in the eye of law. 3.4. 3.3. Learned counsel also submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that at the stage of the determination of the prima facie case, there is no requirement to establish a title, and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below are not sustainable in the eye of law. 3.4. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:- (a) Babu Lal & Ors. Vs. M/s. Vijay Solvex Ltd. Ors. (Civil Appeal No.7174 of 2014, alongwith other connected appeals, decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 04.08.2014); (b) M/s Toyal Bros Vs. Gram Panchayat, Chichorwari (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.583/1983 decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench on 19.07.1988); (c) Narendra Singh Rajawat & Ors. Vs, Thakur Mohan Singh Kanota and Ors., AIR 2002 Raj. 218 ; (d) Rajeshwer Shankar Choudhary @ Rajesh Choudhary & Anr. Vs. Shiv Shankar Choudhary & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 993 of 2013, decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench on 01.05.2013); (e) Janki Devi (Smt.) Vs. Santosh Kumar (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.926 of 2006, decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench on 01.03.2007); (f) Lalluram Vs. Smt Geeta Dei & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.450 of 2017, decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench on 07.02.2017); and (g) Exotique Apparels Vs. Tonk Tanneries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 874 of 1995, decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 13.09.1996). 4. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vinay Soni and Mr. DLR Vyas appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the document pertaining to lawful ownership of the land in question was issued by the Gram Panchayat concerned on 18.06.1997 in favour of the respondents. 4.1. Rajesh Panwar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vinay Soni and Mr. DLR Vyas appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the document pertaining to lawful ownership of the land in question was issued by the Gram Panchayat concerned on 18.06.1997 in favour of the respondents. 4.1. It was further submitted that the Gram Panchayat vide letter dated 19.04.2023 informed the respondents that there is no record available with regard to patta alleged to have been issued to the petitioner, and therefore, as per learned Senior Counsel, the patta was issued in favour of the respondents on 30.12.1987 by the Gram Panchayat was valid, whereas the patta alleged to have been issued in favour of the petitioner is a false and fabricated document. 4.2. It was also submitted that the petitioner had already sold his land, and on that count also, he had no right over the land in question; even the map submitted by the petitioner was not issued by the competent authority. 4.3. It was thus submitted that in the factual matrix of the present case, the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned Courts below in the impugned orders do not deserve any interference by this Court in the instant petition. 4.4. In support of such submissions, reliance was placed upon the following judgments:- (a) Hira Vs. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, 1966 SSC OnLine Raj 89; (b) Har Narayan Sen Vs. Kanchan Panwar & Ors. 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 7689; (c) Shankera Ram Vs. Munnalal & Ors. 2002 SCC OnLine Raj 990; (d) Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors. (2015) 5 SCC 423 ; (e) Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 1374/2008, decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 17.07.2012); (f) Rajendra Kumar Vs. Lekhraj (S.B.C.W.P. No.4066 of 2020, decided by this Court on 06.04.2021); and (g) Prabhuram & Ors. Vs. The President, Shri Kamdhenu Godhan Seva Sansthan, Sindhari (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.573 of 2013 decided by this Court on 21.07.2020). 5. Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned Additional Advocate General (AAG), appeared and submitted a status report, as per the direction of this Hon’ble Court on 05.07.2023. The status report of the land in question (Patta nos. Vs. The President, Shri Kamdhenu Godhan Seva Sansthan, Sindhari (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.573 of 2013 decided by this Court on 21.07.2020). 5. Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned Additional Advocate General (AAG), appeared and submitted a status report, as per the direction of this Hon’ble Court on 05.07.2023. The status report of the land in question (Patta nos. 14 and 419), indicates that no record is available with the Gram Panchayat concerned, in regard to the patta alleged to have been issued by it, in favour of the petitioner, and thus, the petitioner was not even in possession of the land in question, while the respondent no.2-Abdul Malik has been found to be the owner of the land in question. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 7. This Court observes that the petitioner instituted the aforementioned suit along with the temporary injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 with Section 151 CPC against the respondents before the learned Court below, whereupon the learned Court passed ad-interim order and issued directions for maintaining status quo with regard to the land in question, till filing of the written statement by the respondents. After filing of the written statement, the learned Court below vide the impugned order dated 12.05.2023 rejected the temporary injunction application. The petitioner preferred the aforementioned appeal against the order dated 12.05.2023 before the learned Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 03.06.2023. 8. In regard to the question of prima facie case claimed to have been made out in favour of the petitioner, this Court observes that the petitioner alleged that patta no.4 dated 05.06.1996 was issued in his favour by the Gram Panchayat concerned; he has also submitted copies of the said patta and title certificate dated dated 11.04.1998, whereas, the respondents submitted copies of the patta no. 419 dated 30.12.1987 and ownership certificate no. 737 dated 18.06.1997, and the respondents also submitted the electricity bill pertaining to the land in question. 9. This Court further observes that the learned Courts below held that the petitioner submitted the patta along with map of Balwant Market regarding the shop, but the said patta is residential and the map was not issued by the competent authority and the description of the land therein was also not matched. 10. 9. This Court further observes that the learned Courts below held that the petitioner submitted the patta along with map of Balwant Market regarding the shop, but the said patta is residential and the map was not issued by the competent authority and the description of the land therein was also not matched. 10. This Court also observes that as per the Commissioner’s report, the description of land was matching with the patta submitted by the respondents and no record was found in the office of the Gram Panchayat concerned alleged to have been issued in favour of the petitioner in regard to the land in question. Therefore, no prima facie case is made out in favour of the petitioner. 11. This Court further observes that the respondents have constructed Kachha house and shop over the land in question and there is nothing on record which could show that the petitioner has any construction over the land in question. Thus, as regards, the question of balance of convenience, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below. Therefore, in case the temporary injunction as sought for by the petitioner was passed, the same would have resulted into an irreparable loss to the respondents. 12. This Court also observes that despite the State Government not being a party in the present case, but for ascertaining the actual position and status of the land in question, this Court directed the learned AAG to submit the status report on 05.07.2023; as per the direction, the status report dated 19.07.2023 was prepared by the Assistant Development Officer and Village Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Phalodi, which clearly stated that no record is available regarding the patta, registry, possession and the description of the land, as provided by the petitioner. The said status report, which is produced on record, is reproduced as hereunder:- ^^tkap fjiksVZ eqdnek la[;k%& ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; dSl uEcj ------- izdj.k ds laca/k esa fuosnu fuEufyf[kr izdkj ls gS& iapk;r lfefr dk;kZy; ds i= Øekad 811&12 fnukad 18-02-2023 dh ikyuk esa ge desVh lnL; vkseizdk'k vkfl;ka ¼lgk;d fodkl vf/kdkjh] ia-l- Qyksnh½ ,oa fot;iky ckuk ¼xzke fodkl vf/kdkjh] xzke iapk;r [khapu½ xzke iapk;r dk;kZy; x;sA xzke iapk;r ds fjdkWMZ dk voyksdu fd;k x;k ftlesa eqdnes esa of.kZr bfy;kl iq= v[ks eksgEen dk iV~Vk la[;k 419@30-12-1987 ,oa ca'khyky iq= lksukjke ekyh dk iV~Vk la[;k 14@05-10-1996 ds laca/k esa dksbZ fjdkWMZ ugha ik;k x;kA mDr iV~Vksa ds laca/k esa xzke iapk;r esa dksbZ fjdkWMZ miyC/k ugha gSA desVh }kjk ekSdk eqvk;uk fd;k x;k rks ik;k x;k fd ekSds ij Nr Mkyus rd dk fuekZ.k dk;Z gks pqdk gSA vkl ikl esa mifLFkr xzkeh.kksa ls iwNus ij xzkeh.kksa }kjk crk;k x;k fd ;g fuekZ.k dk;Z vCnqy efyd dk gSA mDr ds laca/k esa vCnqy efyd }kjk miyC/k djok;s x;s nLrkostksa ds voyksdu ls irk pyrk gS fd ¼1½ iwoZ eas bfy;kl iq= v[ks eksgEen us iV~Vk la[;k dk cSpku jftLVjh }kjk Jh ckyfd'ku iq= ujflaxnkl tkfr lqFkkj fuoklh QykSnh rglhy Qyksnh ftyk tks/kiqj ,oa Jh enuyky iq= yw.kdj.k tkfr lksuh fuoklh Qyksnh rglhy Qyksnh ftyk tks/kiqj dks fnuk ad 07-07-2004 dks foØ; fd;kA ¼2½ mijksDr Jh ckyfd'ku ,oa Jh enuyky us fnukad 19-10-2006 dks jftLVjh }kjk mijksDr Hkw&[k.M c'khj[kka iq= gkth vCnqy djhe tkfr eqlyeku fuoklh tksM+ rglhy QykSnh ftyk tks/kiqj dks cSpku fd;kA ¼3½ mijksDr c'khj [kka iq= gkth vCnqy djhe us mijksDr Hkw&[k.M fnukad 31-08-2021 dks jftLVjh }kjk vCnqy efyd iq= vkenhu tkfr eqlydku fuoklh ckfi.kh] rglhy Qyksnh ftyk tks/kiqj dks tfj, jftLVjh cSpku fd;kA vkt mijksDr vCnqy efyd iq= vkenhu tkfr eqlydku fuoklh ckfi.kh ftyk tks/kiqj mijksDr Hkw&[k.M ij dkcht gS rFkk mijksDr Hkw&[k.M ij mldk fuekZ.k dk;Z orZeku esa py jgk gSA Jh ca'khyky iq= lksukjke tkfr ekyh fuoklh [khapu rglhy Qyksnh ftyk tks/kiqj ds iVVs ds lac/k esa u rks dksbZ fjdkMZ feyk gS vkSj u gh dksbZ jftLVjh bR;kfn feys gS vkSj u gh ekSds ij dkcht gS vkSj u gh vkl&iMksl }kjk mldk Hkw&[k.M gksuk crk;k x;k gSA bl izdkj mijksDr Hkw&[k.M dk Lokeh vkt vCnqy efyd iq= vkenhu tkfr eqlyeku fuoklh ckfi.kh] rglhy Qyksnh ftyk tks/kiqj ik;k x;kA layXu %& 1- ekSdk fjiksVZA 2- fctyh fcy ¼c'khj [kka ia= gkth vCnqy djhe½ o"kZ 2016 3- ikap iMksfl;ksa ds ekSdk c;kuA 4- ekSdk LFky dk QksVks A 5- rhu jftLVªh dh izfrfyfiA ,l- Mh ,l- Mh ¼vkse izdk'k vkfl;k½ ¼fot;iky ckuk½ lgk;d fodkl vf/kdkjh xzke fodkl vf/kdkjh iapk; lfefr Qyksnh xzke iapk;r [khpu^^ 12.1. The aforementioned status report also clearly goes against the claim of the petitioner. 13. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below in the impugned orders do not call for any interference by this Court in the instant petition. 14. The judgments cited at the Bar on behalf of the petitioner also do not render any assistance to his case. 15. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations as well as looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 16. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.