JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 17.8.2000 passed by Additional District Judge No. 4, Kota in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 40/2000, whereby he allowed the appeal preferred by defendant Nos. 1 & 2 against the order dated 26.5.99 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) No. 5 (North) Kota whereby the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed by plaintiff petitioner has been allowed. 2. The petitioners-plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant respondents for restraining them from raising any construction on Chabutri measuring 41/2 ft. x 10 ft. used for public and that the Nagar Nigam be restrained from issuing sanction for constructions. Along with the suit the application for interim order was filed under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC. 3. It is submitted that the respondent had purchased the house on 13.2.90 from Kailash Chand Vijay. The alleged Chabutri is situated in public way on Govt. land and is used for the common public for sitting and that it is situated below the balcony that i.e projection of the house of petitioner. It is also submitted that the respondents 1 & 2 had also constructed the balcony. The respondents had taken up the plea that the Chabutri in dispute is not used by public and they had taken the permission from the Municipal Corporation. The Municipal Corporation filed the reply and submitted that the dispute is in between the plaintiff and respondents 1 & 2. The trial court had granted interim injunction as prayed for in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants filed the appeal, which appeal has been accepted by the appellate court. 4. The dispute between the parties remains to the effect that whether the land in question was a public place and whether the implied permission to the plaintiff had been given regarding Chabutri infront of their house or even if they are using the Chabutri, whether it was permissible to make construction on the said Chabutri. The Municipal Corporation after submitting his reply to the effect that the land in question belonged to Municipal Corporation and had said that the dispute relates between the private parties and the Municipal Corporation was not concerned with the dispute. The Municipal Corporation had given the permission on 10.4.95. 5. The Municipal Corporation after submitting his reply to the effect that the land in question belonged to Municipal Corporation and had said that the dispute relates between the private parties and the Municipal Corporation was not concerned with the dispute. The Municipal Corporation had given the permission on 10.4.95. 5. The appellate court had come to a finding that in view of the pleadings of parties, it cannot be decided whether the place in question was a public place or not, as there was no specific record available in this regard. However, both the parties admit that along with the public street and in front of the house including the plaintiff and another people there is open space which they call Chabutri, which is situated out in front of their houses. Padesterian may use it, but whether it is any private property or public property or belong to Municipal Corporation is to be established and in this regard no evidence has been produced. The first appellate court found that there was no prima facie case proved by plaintiff that the Chabutri is public place. and as such the application for interim injunction was dismissed, quashing the order of trial court. 6. After hearing counsel for petitioner and going through the impugned order, I fully agree with the reason given by the appellate court. It had rightly dismissed the application of injunction. There is no illegality in the order of appellate court. I do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the appellate court. I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. The revision petition has no merits and is dismissed at admission stage.Writ Petition dismissed. *******