JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. M.K. Paneri, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. J.H. Singh, learned advocate on caveat for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the judgment and order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Mehsana at Visnagar in Civil Misc. Application No.4 of 2021 whereunder the order dated 23.7.2021 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Visnagar below Exhibit 5 in Regular Civil Suit No.17 of 2020 came to be set aside.

3. Facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was working as a "Pujari" since last 18 years at the Mahakali alias Netreshwari Majati Temple at Village Bokarwada, Taluka Visnagar, district Mehsana. He was also allotted a residential quarter located in the premises of the temple in his capacity as a Pujari. It appears that owing to some dispute between the respondents and villagers, the petitioner came to be discontinued as Pujari with effect from 8.6.2020 and also directed to vacate the quarter given to him in his capacity as Pujari. The petitioner instituted Regular Civil Suit No.17 of 2020 in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Visnagar for declaration and permanent injunction. He also preferred an application Exhibit 5 to restrain the respondents from removing him as a Pujari and from the quarter allotted to him during pendency of the suit. Learned trial Judge by his order dated 23.7.2021 partly allowed application Exhibit 5 and directed the respondents not to remove the petitioner as Pujari without following due process of law.

4. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned trial Judge, the respondents preferred Civil Misc. Application No.4 of 2021 under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure in the District Court. The Learned Lower Appellate Court by impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2021 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 23.7.2021 passed below Exhibit 5 by the learned Additional Civil Judge in Regular Civil Suit No.17 of 2020.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned Lower Appellate Court has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Mr. Paneri, learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submits that the Lower Appellate Court has passed the order on the basis of documents which are not there on the record of the suit. He further submits that if the petitioner is not protected, he would lose the Pujariship. It is his further submission that the Court below has not properly considered the factor of irreparable loss and balance of convenience in the impugned order. He further submits that the trial of the suit is likely to take more time during which period, if the petitioner is not protected, he would be without the source of livelihood. He, therefore, urges that the petition requires consideration.

7. Mr. Singh, learned advocate on caveat for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment and order of the Lower Appellate Court. It is his submission that the petitioner has already been removed as a Pujari and in fact, there is ample documentary evidences to indicate that he had handed over charge as a Pujari has vacanted possession of the quarter to the respondents. He submits that the learned Lower Appellate Court has considered all the relevant facts to set aside the order of the trial Court which does not warrant interference in exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, more particularly, the petitioner has failed to point out any perversity or jurisdictional error in the order.

8. I have considered the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a Pujari in the respondents Trust and was also given quarter in the premises of the temple in his capacity as Pujari. However, it appears from the impugned order of the Lower Appellate Court that the petitioner had handed over the charge as a Pu