Short Note Heard and perused record. The two Courts below have rejected applicant-plaintiffs prayer under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC holding that applicant-plaintiff prima-facie does not appear in settled possession. Applicant and respondent No. 1 are disputing over a piece of Government land. Respondent No. 1 has in his favour a patta granted somewhere in the year 1984-85, whereas the applicant has yet to get a patta and he is basing his claim only on the entry of possession in the year 1997-98 which was recorded by Tahsildar. The plaintiff filed suit for temporary injunction in the trial Court and filed application for grant of temporary injunction, which was rejected by the trial Court and the appellate Court subsequently confirmed the order by the impugned order dated 14.2.2000 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 12/99. Having heard learned counsel on the two sides and having gone through the records, there is no merit in the revision petition. Compared to respondent No. 1, who has a patta in his favour, plaintiff-applicant has no prima-facie case. Question of title in the land does not arise because it is a Government land and plaintiff-applicant so far could not obtain any pal/a. As regards his possession for the solitary year 1997-98, it is supported only by an entry on the orders of the Tahsildar, which could not unfortunately be sustained by the Additional Commissioner. Presently, the position stands that the applicant-plaintiff is not even in the recorded possession. In view of this fact when applicant-plaintiff has neither prima-facie case nor he is in possession, there was no question for granting temporary injunction in his favour to protect his possession. The orders passed by learned Courts below, therefore, call for no interference in exercise of powers under section 115, CPC. Revision fails and it is, therefore, dismissed.