ORDER : Nupur Bhati, J. 1. Though the matter has been listed in the 'Fresh' category, upon the joint request of both the parties, the matter is heard finally, today itself. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 07.05.2024, passed by the learned District Judge, Jalore (‘Appellate Court’) in Civil Appeal Order Case No. 03/2023 whereby the learned Appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff, while setting aside the order dated 03.06.2023, passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge No. 1, Jalore (‘Trial Court’), and granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. 3. The writ petition has been preferred with the following prayers: “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioners nay kindly be accepted and:- (i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 07.05.2024 (Annexure-8), passed by the learned District Judge, Jalore, in Civil Appeal Order Case No.-03/2023 (Mangilal versus Lachharam & Ors.). may kindly be set aside and consequence thereof the appeal (Annexure-7) filed by the respondent-appellant-plaintiff-applicant may kindly be dismissed with exemplary costs. (ii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. (iii) costs throughout may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners.” 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent- plaintiff filed a suit (Annex.1) under Section 6 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for the restoration of possession and permanent & mandatory injunction against the petitioners- defendants of the plot marked as A, B, C, D in Map “A”, situated in the Aabadi land of Mauja Samatipura, Bodi Seri. Subsequently, the respondent-plaintiff also filed an application (Annex.2) under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking temporary injunction in his favour, to which the petitioners-defendants filed their reply, subsequent thereto the learned Trial Court also appointed a Commissioner to prepare a report (Annex.5). Thereafter, the learned Trial Court,, vide order dated 03.06.2023 (Annex.6), rejected the application filed by the respondents-defendants. 5. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court,, vide order dated 03.06.2023 (Annex.6), rejected the application filed by the respondents-defendants. 5. Aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 03.06.2023 (Annex.6), the respondents-defendants preferred an appeal (Annex.7) before the Appellate Court, which was allowed vide order dated 07.05.2024 (Annex.8). Thus, aggrieved by the order dated 07.05.2024 (Annex.8), passed by the learned Appellate Court, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants submits that the patta of the property in question has been issued in favour of the petitioners-defendants and admittedly, the respondent-plaintiff is not having any right in the property in question and there was was no occasion for the Appellate Court to allow the temporary injunction application filed by the respondent-plaintiff, and thus, the learned Appellate Court has erred in granting the temporary injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants also submits that the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 03.06.2023 (Annex.6), has rightly dismissed the temporary injunction application filed by the respondent-plaintiff, after considering the Commissioner Report (Annex.5), while observing that the respondent-plaintiff failed to establish prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in his favour and therefore, the order dated 03.06.2023 (Annex.6) was just and proper, and warranted no interference by the Appellate Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants also submits that the learned Appellate Court has erred in giving a finding with regard to the nature of suit, inasmuch as the suit preferred by the respondent-plaintiff is for restoration of possession and permanent & mandatory injunction and that, there was no relief sought with respect to partition, however, the learned Appellate Court has granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, while observing that the status quo shall be maintained till the decision of the partition suit. He thus submits that the order dated 07.05.2024 (Annex.8) suffers from infirmities and deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the learned Appellate Court has rightly allowed the temporary injunction application filed by the respondent-plaintiff after considering all the factors, i.e. the establishment of prima- facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and has categorically directed both the parties to maintain the status quo of the property in question. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the learned Appellate Court has rightly allowed the temporary injunction application filed by the respondent-plaintiff after considering all the factors, i.e. the establishment of prima- facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and has categorically directed both the parties to maintain the status quo of the property in question. He submits that admittedly the petitioners-defendants are in possession of the property in question, and the order of status quo passed by the Appellate Court (Annex.8), directs both the parties to maintain status quo of the property in question and therefore, the said order dated 07.05.2024 (Annex.8) does not infringe the rights of the petitioners-defendants. He thus submits that the order dated 07.05.2024 (Annex.8) passed by the learned Appellate Court warrants no interference by this Court. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff also submits that the suit (Annex.1) filed by the respondent-plaintiff is indeed for the restoration of the possession along with permanent and mandatory injunction and that the learned Appellate Court might have inadvertently mentioned suit for partition instead of suit for restoration of possession and mandatory & permanent injunction. He thus submits that otherwise, the learned Appellate Court has dealt with the factum as well as the findings of the learned Trial Court (Annex.6) in detail and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff, and therefore, the order dated 07.05.2024 (Annex.8), suffers from no infirmity and warrants no interference by this Court. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record. 12. This Court finds that the learned Appellate Court while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff, has considered all the elements to be taken into account while deciding a temporary injunction application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, which include, (a) Prima Facie case (b)Balance of convenience (c) Irreparable Loss 12.1 It is seen that, with respect to the establishment of prima facie case, the learned Appellate Court has observed that a prima facie case is one which has to be examined on the basis of merits and that, the Court has to satisfy that in case no interference is granted by the Court, the same would cause an irreparable loss to the other party. Taking into account the said principle, the learned Appellate Court has observed that where the subject matter of the suit is an immovable property, it is only reasonable that the nature of the property should not be changed substantially so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Applying this to the present case, the learned Appellate Court has rightly held that in the instant case too, till the final disposal of the suit, it is necessary to keep the property in question secured, and that, if the same is not done, and in case the parties to the dispute alienate the property in question, it would only lead to multiplicity of proceedings and thus, in the present case, the learned Appellate Court has rightly held that the prima facie case is also established in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, in addition to the petitioners-defendants, as observed by the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 03.06.2023 (Annex.3). 12.2 While deciding the issue of balance of convenience as well as irreparable loss, the learned Appellate Court has categorically observed that if the status quo of the property in question is not maintained, then both the parties would suffer irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated with money and therefore, taking into account the given circumstances, learned Appellate Court observed that it is only prudent to allow the temporary injunction application in order to maintain the status quo of the property in question. 13. Also, it is seen that the learned Appellate Court has not created rights in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, but has merely estopped both the parties from creating third party rights by allowing the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. 14. Thus, this Court finds that there is no prejudice caused to the petitioners-defendants by virtue of the order dated 07.05.2024 (Annex.8), passed by the learned Appellate Court inasmuch as the both the parties have been directed to maintain the status quo, and therefore, this Court finds no infirmity in the said order. 15. 14. Thus, this Court finds that there is no prejudice caused to the petitioners-defendants by virtue of the order dated 07.05.2024 (Annex.8), passed by the learned Appellate Court inasmuch as the both the parties have been directed to maintain the status quo, and therefore, this Court finds no infirmity in the said order. 15. Also, it appears to this Court that the learned Appellate Court has inadvertently, on account of a typographical error, has referred to the suit as a suit for partition, however the suit (Annex.1) has been filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking restoration of possession along with permanent and mandatory injunction as seen from the prayers made in the suit, therefore, the argument of the counsel for the petitioners-defendants that the Appellate Court has erred in arriving at the conclusion, while considering the present suit as a suit for partition, is rendered devoid of merit inasmuch as the learned Appellate Court had otherwise dealt with and considered all the elements temporary injunction, i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff, vide order dated 07.05.2024 (Annex.8). 16. In the light of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court concurs with the order dated 07.05.2024 (Annex.8), passed by the learned Appellate Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Stay petition and misc. application(s), if any, also dismissed.