TIWARI, M.—This is a revision petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the impugned order dated 29.1.08 of Revenue Appellate Authority Pali passed in appeal No. 66/07.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that during the pendency of a revenue suit before Sub-Divisional Officer Desuri (Pali) non-petitioners had filed an application under Section 212 of the Act before the trial Court in which Sub-Divisional Officer granted interim injunction upto 23.8.07 which was challenged before the Revenue Appellate Authority Pali who vide his order dated 29.1.08 called for the report of site inspection before passing any order in the appeal. The next date for hearing was fixed on 29.2.08 by Revenue Authority, The petitioners have preferred the instant revision against order dated 29.1.08 of Revenue Appellate Authority Pali.

3. I have heard both the learned counsel.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in this case Revenue Appellate Authority has called for the report of site inspection which is not required under Section 212 of the Act, as parties themselves have to prove their case on the basis of the evidence. Revenue Appellate Authority has also ordered for carrying out `Paimaish' of the disputed land. On this `Paimaish' report both the parties have registered their objections. As such the impugned order dated 29.1.08 of Revenue Appellate Authority is illegal and should be quashed.

5. Opposing the contentions of the petitioners, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners argued that the appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority has become in fructuous as the impugned order dated 7.7.07 was effective only upto 23.8.07. It is also argued that it is the discretion of the trial Court under Order 39 Rule 7 of the C.P.C. and Order 26 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. to ask for the report of site inspection. It is pleaded that the impugned order is an interim order against which revision is not maintainable according 1999 RRD 506.

6. I have given thoughtful consideration of the rival contentions, perused the impugned orders of both the courts below and gone through the record available on the file.

7. At the very outset, it is worth mentioning that the impugned order dated 7.7.07 of Sub-Divisional Officer Desuri granting temporary injunction was effective only upto 23.8.07 - the next date of hearing before the trial Court. This was an interim order. When Revenue Appellate Authority passed the impugned order dated 29.1.08 for obtaining report of site inspection in connection with the appeal filed before him, the impugned order dated 7.7.07 of Sub-Divisional Officer Desuri was no longer in existence. Thus the appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority had become infructuous ipsofacto as there was no appealable order in existence.

8. It is worthwhile to state here that the report of site inspection cannot be called for by the Court in deciding the matter of temporary injunction in which parties concerned have to prove their own prima facie case based on prima facie possession and prima facie title along with balance of convenience. The Court should not create extra and additional evidence of any alleged possession or title by ordering for the report of site inspection. The provisions of order 26 Rule 9 and Order 39 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. are altogether different from the provisions of section 212 of the Act which is by and large self-sufficient in this regard. The report of site inspection or appointment of any Commissioner to ascertain possession on the disputed land is not warranted under the provisions of section 212 of the Act. Concerned parties have to prove their prima facie case themselves.

9. In view of the above discussion, the revision is accepted. The order dated 29.1.08 of Revenue Appellate Authority Pali is quashed. The appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority Pali against the impugned order dated 7.7.07 of Sub-Divisional Officer Desuri has become infructuous as impugned order is no longer in existenc