Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Savita Jain, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondent and perused the record.

2. Facts of the present case are that petitioner-plaintiff/Ratti Pal has filed a suit for permanent injunction registered as Regular Suit No. 218 of 2010 with the following main prayer :

Þoknh o Áfroknh 4 rk 6 ds i{k esa fo:) Áfroknh 1 rk 3 fMxzh LFkk;h fu”ks/kkKk ikfjr djrs gq, oknh o Áfroknh 4 rk 6 ds oknxzLr Hkwfe ij ‘kkafriw.kZ dCtk n[ky o miHkksxkfèkdkj esa gLr{ksi djus ls ml ij dCtk o fuekZ.k djus ls Áfroknh 1 rk 3 dks lnk loZnk ds fy;s euk fd;k tkosA

3. Further, in the said suit, an application for grant of temporary injunction under order 39 Rule 1 CPC has been moved. By an order dated 5.2.2010, Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Sadar, Pratapgarh, has granted ex parte temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendant has put appearance in the matter in question and after hearing the parties concerned by order dated 5.10.2010, Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Court No. 10, Pratapgarh has rejected the temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff.

4. Aggrieved by t