ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff assailing the orders dated 05.04.2019 (Annex.5) and 05.08.2024 (Annex.6) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Mavli, District Udaipur and learned Additional District Judge No.4, Udapur respectively, whereby the learned trial court as also the appellate court have concurrently rejected the application preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking restraint order against the respondents/ defendants not to interfere in the possession of the petitioner/plaintiff over the land in question and maintain the status quo of the site and record; and allowed the counter claim filed by the respondents No.2 to 4. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents/defendants and along with the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction to the effect that the respondents/defendants be restrained from interfering the possession of the petitioner over the land in question and also sought a direction to maintain status quo with respect to site and record as well. In the application, the petitioner/plaintiff claimed that the respondent No.1/defendant was the recorded Khatedar of land comprising Aaraji No.1802 ad- measuring 2 Bigha and 8 Biswa (Barani-II) of revenue village Bajainagar, Patwar Mandal Naharmagra, Tehsil Mavli, District Udaipur. The defendant No.1 sold the land in question to the petitioner/plaintiff in the year 1997 and received the amount of consideration and also executed an agreement on a hundred rupees stamp on 22.08.2007 under his signatures and the possession of the land in question was handed over to the petitioner/plaintiff. The petitioner/plaintiff further stated that after the petitioner/plaintiff was put in possession of the land in question, the petitioner constructed boundary wall towards northern side of the land, installed gate and towards southern- eastern side, fencing was also raised. The petitioner/plaintiff also constructed his house and obtained electricity connection in his name. In the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, the petitioner/plaintiff further stated that later on, the defendant No.1 sold the land in question in favour of respondents/defendants No.2 to 4 and after execution of the sale-deed in favour of defendants No.2 to 4, formal partition was done. 3. In the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, the petitioner/plaintiff further stated that later on, the defendant No.1 sold the land in question in favour of respondents/defendants No.2 to 4 and after execution of the sale-deed in favour of defendants No.2 to 4, formal partition was done. 3. In the application seeking temporary injunction, the petitioner/plaintiff further stated that after coming to know of the sale-deed being executed by defendant No.1 fraudulently, the petitioner submitted a complaint, upon which FIR was also registered, wherein after thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the defendant No.1 for offence under Section 420 of IPC. It was further stated that the petitioner/plaintiff is in possession of the land in question, which is ‘Abadi land’ since 1997, however, on the basis of sale-deed executed in favour of defendants, their names have been recorded in the revenue record as Khatedar(s). The petitioner/plaintiff further stated that since the land in question has been recorded in the names of defendants, therefore, they are interfering in the peaceful possession of the land in question and want to evict the petitioner. The petitioner thus submitted that he is in possession of the land in question since 1997, therefore, balance of convenience lies in his favour. The petitioner thus prayed that the respondents/ defendants be injuncted from interfering in the possession of the petitioner over the land in question and a direction for maintaining the status of the site and record be also issued. 4. The respondent/defendant No.1 filed reply to the application for temporary injunction while stating that he is the recorded Khatedar of land comprising Aaraji No.1802 ad-measuring 4 Bigha and 8 Biswa and out of which he sold 2 Bigha land to the petitioner/plaintiff while executing an agreement on 100/- rupees stamp, however, the sale-deed was not registered. In the reply, the defendant No.1 further stated that in the agreement, inadvertently, the Aaraji No.1902 was mentioned instead of Aaraji No.1802, therefore, in the year 2007 another agreement on a 100/- rupees stamp was executed rectifying the said inadvertent mistake. In the reply, the defendant No.1 further stated that in the agreement, inadvertently, the Aaraji No.1902 was mentioned instead of Aaraji No.1802, therefore, in the year 2007 another agreement on a 100/- rupees stamp was executed rectifying the said inadvertent mistake. Thereafter, in the year 2007 when the plaintiff contacted the defendant No.1 to execute sale-deed, then the defendant No.1 came to know that defendants No.2 to 4 without informing him got registered the land in question in their names and when this fact came to knowledge of the defendant No.1, then in the social mediation, the defendant No.1 agreed to register land ad- measuring 2 Bigha in favour of plaintiff and the same was reduced in writing on a 100/- rupees stamp and possession of the land was handed over. The defendant No.1 thus submitted that in the garb the aforesaid agreement, the plaintiff took possession over the entire land, though entire land was not sold and remaining 4 Bigha was sold to defendants No.2 to 4, however, taking advantage of illiteracy of the defendant No.1, the defendants No.2 to 4 got registered the entire land in their name, and upon being objected, the defendants tried to reason with plaintiff, however, nothing could be fructified and the plaintiff took over the possession of entire land. Even holding mediation between the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 5, the defendants No.2 to 5 refused to execute sale-deed qua 2 Bigha of land in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. The defendant No.1 in the reply stated that in absence of specific performance, the land in question could not have been registered in favour of plaintiff and the land could not be mutated in the name of plaintiff. A prayer for rejection of the application was made. 5. The defendant No.2 also filed reply to the application while denying the averments contained therein. The defendant No.2 stated that in the year 1997 the initial agreement was written on a 10/- rupees stamp at a sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- and the Aaraji No.1902 and 199 were shown, whereas the plaintiff claimed that he had purchased the land of Aaraji No.1802 and on the basis of such an agreement, the plaintiff was not entitled for any relief. An objection with respect to non-registration of the agreement/sale was also raised by the defendant No.2 while stating that on the basis of unregistered and sufficiently stamped document, no relief could have been claimed or granted. It was further stated that the defendant No.1 sold the land in question by registered sale-deed dated 16.09.2006 to defendants No.2 to 4 and the possession of the land in question was also handed over to them and thereafter the defendant No.1 was not having any right to either sale or transfer the land in question. The defendants No.2 to 4 stated that they are the bonafide purchaser for consideration of the land in question and on the basis of alleged agreement(s), the plaintiff want to usurp the land in question. It was further stated in the reply that no fraud was played by the defendants No.2 to 4 and the registered sale-deed was executed by the defendant No.1 after receiving the sale consideration of the land in question. It was thus submitted that the plaintiff has not filed the suit for cancellation of the registered sale-deed, though the petitioner/plaintiff was well aware of execution of the registered sale-deed. It was prayed that the plaintiff is not entitled for any temporary injunction. 6. While filing reply to the application for temporary injunction, the defendant No.2 also filed a counter claim stating therein that since the defendant No.2 and other defendants have purchased the land comprising of Aaraji No.1802, by way of registered sale- deed dated 16.09.2006 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- from defendant No.1 and they were put in possession of the land in question. After registration of the sale-deed, the land was partitioned amongst the defendants and the land got converted for ‘Abadi’ purposes and, therefore, the defendants claimed that the plaintiff be restrained from creating any obstruction in the peaceful possession and use by the defendants No.2 to 4. Along with counter claim, the defendants also produced photographs, relevant documents and commissioner report. 7. The petitioner/plaintiff also filed reply to the counter-claim while denying the averments made therein. While raising various submissions viz. Construction made over the land in question and having electricity connection etc., the petitioner/plaintiff reiterated the averments made in the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and2 CPC. 8. 7. The petitioner/plaintiff also filed reply to the counter-claim while denying the averments made therein. While raising various submissions viz. Construction made over the land in question and having electricity connection etc., the petitioner/plaintiff reiterated the averments made in the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and2 CPC. 8. The learned trial court thereafter heard the arguments raised by the counsel for the parties and while considering the relevant issues viz. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, vide its order dated 05.04.2019 proceeded to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and allowed the counter-claim filed by the defendants No.2 to 4. The learned trial court restrained the petitioner/plaintiff from interfering in the possession and use of the defendants till the decision of the main suit. 9. The petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by order dated 05.04.2019 preferred appeal, however, the same came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge No.4, Udaipur vide order dated 05.08.2024 while concurring with the findings arrived at by the learned trial court. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff vehemently submits that both courts i.e. learned trial court and the appellate court have committed error while passing the orders impugned, though the petitioner/plaintiff amply proved prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in his favour. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the learned courts below have not considered the facts and pleas raised by the petitioner/plaintiff, inasmuch as the petitioner had purchased the land ad-measuring 2 Bigha under the agreement to sale dated 30.10.1997 and the petitioner was put in possession of the land in question, wherein initially the Aaraji No.1902 and 1999 were wrongly mentioned, however, the said inadvertent error got corrected by executing another agreement in the year 2007 (22.08.2007) on a 100/- rupees stamp and the correct Aaraji No.1802 & 1799 were mentioned in the agreement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendant No.1 after selling the land of Aaraji No.1802 to the petitioner/plaintiff, with oblique and ill-intention sold the land in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 by way of executing registered sale-deed dated 16.09.2006, however, this aspect of the matter has not at all been considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendant No.1 after selling the land of Aaraji No.1802 to the petitioner/plaintiff, with oblique and ill-intention sold the land in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 by way of executing registered sale-deed dated 16.09.2006, however, this aspect of the matter has not at all been considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question since 30.10.1997, therefore, subsequent sale-deed dated 16.09.2006 executed in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 does not have any effect over the rights of the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on coming to know of the fact of execution of sale-deed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 4, the petitioner lodged an FIR against the defendant No.1, wherein after investigation, charge sheet was filed against defendant No.1 for offence under Section 420 of IPC. While reiterating the submissions made in the application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question and thus balance of convenience and irreparable injury lies in favour of petitioner and, therefore, the respondents/defendants deserves to be injuncted by restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner/plaintiff. 12. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the material available on record. 13. This Court finds that while deciding the issue with respect to prima facie case, both the learned courts have considered the submissions made by the parties. The petitioner/plaintiff laid much stress upon the agreement executed in the year 1997 by defendant No.1, whereby the land comprising Aaraji No.1809 ad-measuring 2 Bigha and 8 Biswa was sold in favour of plaintiff. The learned trial court as also the appellate court found that in the agreement executed in the year 1997, the land comprising of Aaraji Nos. 1902 and 1999 was shown and neighbourhood was also shown. Later on, another agreement was executed on 22.08.2007 (i.e. much after execution of registered sale-deed dated 16.09.2006 in favour of defendants No.2 to 4) by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff while mentioning Aaraji No.1802. This Court finds that the both courts below have considered the submissions made by defendants No.2 to 4 that they purchased the land comprising of Aaraji Nos. This Court finds that the both courts below have considered the submissions made by defendants No.2 to 4 that they purchased the land comprising of Aaraji Nos. 1802 and 1799 from defendant No.1 by way of registered sale-deed dated 16.09.2006 and the possession of the land was also handed over to them. 14. After perusing the material available on record, the learned trial court has recorded a finding that there was discrepancy in the number of Aaraji number of the land in the agreement executed between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. The land comprising of Aaraji No.1802 and other Aaraji(s) was sold by the defendant No.1 to defendants No.2 to 4 by way of registered sale-deed dated 16.09.2006, thus execution of subsequent agreement dated 22.08.2007, was ineffective. The plaintiff in his application stated that defendant No.1 executed an agreement in his favour on 30.10.1997 and wrote another agreement in relation to the same land on 22.08.2007, but in both the agreements the Aaraji numbers are different and the neighbourhoods mentioned are also different, although the defendant No.1 has submitted in his reply while admitting to have executed both the agreements dated 30.10.1997 and 22.8.2007 in favour of the plaintiff and stating that he sold 2 Bigha of land to the plaintiff, however, he has taken possession of the entire land and on the other hand he has stated that he had sold his remaining land to the defendants No.2 to 4 through registered sale deed, but the defendants No.2 to 4 have got the sale deed of his entire land recorded by undue influence while taking advantage of his illiteracy. The learned courts below have recorded the finding that at this stage the contention of the defendant No. 1 himself seems contradictory, inasmuch as on the one hand he states that he has possession of the entire land, while on the other hand he stated that he has handed over the possession of the land sold by him through registered sale deed to defendants No.2 to 4. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to present any concrete evidence, whereas the defendants were claiming ownership right on the basis of registered sale deed. The learned trial court has also observed that in both the agreements presented by the plaintiff in support of his application and plaint, it was not clear that the present owner mentioned in the agreement is defendant no. The learned trial court has also observed that in both the agreements presented by the plaintiff in support of his application and plaint, it was not clear that the present owner mentioned in the agreement is defendant no. 1, as no document has been presented in relation to who owned the Aaraji Nos. 1902 and 1999 mentioned therein at that time and the second agreement dated 22.08.2007 presented by the petitioner/plaintiff, is an invalid document in law. 15. The learned trial court has also recorded that the agreement dated 22.08.2007, as stated by the petitioner/plaintiff and defendant No. 1 in their respective application and reply application respectively, was executed in continuation of the agreement dated 30.10.1997 made by defendant No. 1 in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff, but the Aaraji(s) numbers of both the said documents, even do not match. Thus, this Court concurs with the concurrent findings of learned courts below that no prima facie case is made out in favour of planitff, as the defendants No.2 to 4 in support of the counter petitions have submitted registered sale deed and relevant mutation entries viz. Jamabandi in respect of the disputed land, which shows that they are the recorded Khatedar(s) of the disputed land; and in such a situation, a prima facie case is found to be made out against defendants No.2 and 4. 16. While deciding the issues viz. balance of convenience and irreparable injury, the learned trial court has observed that since prima facie case is not found to be made out in favour of the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 and 4 have stated their counter claim application that the land mentioned in the application has been acquired through registered deed and that the defendant No.1 has handed over possession to them and at present they are the recorded Khatedar(s) of the said land, thus prima facie case has been proved. The learned trial court has rightly observed that if temporary injunction is not issued in their favour, then they will have to face extreme inconvenience from the plaintiff and will suffer such loss which cannot be compensated in money. Therefore, the points of balance of convenience and irreparable loss were rightly decided in favour of defendants No.2 and 4. 17. The learned trial court has rightly observed that if temporary injunction is not issued in their favour, then they will have to face extreme inconvenience from the plaintiff and will suffer such loss which cannot be compensated in money. Therefore, the points of balance of convenience and irreparable loss were rightly decided in favour of defendants No.2 and 4. 17. This Court finds that the learned Additional District Judge No.4, Udaipur (appellate court) while deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner/plaintiff has considered the entire material and submissions which were advanced on behalf of plaintiff. The learned appellate court has observed that in the year 1997 the initial agreement was written on a 10/- rupees stamp qua the sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- and the Aaraji No.1902 and 199 were shown, whereas the plaintiff claimed that he had purchased the land of Aaraji No.1802 and on the basis of such an agreement, the plaintiff could not even seek execution of the sale-deed. The learned appellate court has concurred with the findings arrived at by learned trial court that in the initial agreement the land comprising Aaraji Nos. 1902 and 1999 and neighbourhood shown were entirely different from the agreement executed in the year 2007, which agreement was executed much after execution of the registered sale-deed in favour of defendants No.2 to 4. Thus, the learned appellate court has rightly affirmed the finding arrived at by learned trial court that no prima facie case is made out in favour of plaintiff. 18. So far as the issues viz. balance of convenience and irreparable injury are concerned, this Court finds that the learned appellate court has rightly held that the petitioner/plaintiff has miserably failed to prove prima facie case in his favour by leading cogent and convincing evidence, therefore, no error has been committed by the learned appellate court while dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff. 19. Accordingly and in view of above discussion, the writ petition being bereft of any merit fails and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed. No costs.