JUDGMENT Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankit Gaur for the respondent. 2. Suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner seeking a decree of injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering in his peaceful possession over the land in dispute. An application for temporary injunction was also filed. Both the courts below have rejected the application for temporary injunction on the ground that plaintiff-petitioner has failed to establish any prima-facie case. A perusal of the plaint filed as annexure-1 to the writ petition goes to show that though the injunction was being claimed over the suit property which was depicted by means of plaint map shown by letters A,B, C, D but neither any plot number nor any other details which could lead to the identification of the suit property was there either in the plaint or in the application for temporary injunction or any affidavit filed in support thereof. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the possession of the petitioner over an area 20 Kari was admitted by the defendant-respondent in their objection as such the courts below was unjustified in rejecting the temporary injunction. 4. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. A perusal of the judgement of the courts below goes to show that both the courts below have recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiff-petitioner has failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the allegation that 20 karis of land, over which his possession is being admitted by the defendant-respondent, is part of the suit property, as delineated in the plaint map. 6. In the absence of any specific averments with respect to the identity of the suit property, no illegality appears to have been committed by the courts below in rejecting the application for temporary injunction. 7. The petition accordingly fails and stands dismissed.