( 1 ) THE petitioner as plaintiff instituted Original Suit No. 1688 of 1997 in the Court of Civil judge. (Junior Division ). Jaunpur. In connection with the said suit, he filed an application for temporary injunction. By an order dated 13. 11. 1997, ad interim injunction was granted. Subsequently, by an order dated 4. 2. 1998 the application for temporary injunction was rejected on contest. Misc. Appeal No. 15 of 1998 was preferred against the said order. By an order dated 31. 3. 1998 passed by the learned District Judge, the appeal was dismissed and the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) was upheld. These orders have been challenged in this petition.

( 2 ) MR. Govind Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the appeal court had thoroughly on misconception of facts come to the finding that no prima facie case was made out. It has come to the finding that plot No. 38 is recorded as patri in the name of the plaintiff and khasra for the year 1404 Fasli also stands in the name of the plaintiff on misconception notion that plot No. 38/66 was not recorded as pond but as patri and then the said land was shown to have been used by the