JUDGMENT : Vineet Kothari, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The two courts below have concurrently rejected the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code in the suit for permanent injunction. 3. The plaintiff claimed that she and one Prakash Chaudhary, who was her paramour entered into an agreement to purchase the suit property situated at A-55/12, Arvind Nagar, near Kendriya Vidhyalaya No.1, Jodhpur for a sum of Rs. 15,01,000/- and under the said agreement, a sum of Rs. 51,000/- was given as advance to the seller - defendant No.1 - Surendra Bohra and she was in permissive possession of the suit property since the said agreement dated 10.12.2007 and upon the relationship between her and Prakash Chaudhary straining, she was sought to be thrown out of S.B.CWP NO.9236/2010 - Rekha Kavi v. Surendra Bohra and Ors. of the said suit property and therefore, she had to file the present suit for injunction. 4. Both the Courts below have found that no evidence was produced by the plaintiff - petitioner showing agreement of purchase entered into by her and on the contrary the agreement produced by the defendants showed that the said agreement was entered into only on 10.12.2007 with Prakash Chaudhary and by forging the said agreement, the plaintiff had inserted her name as party No.1 in the said agreement. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Rekha Borana urged that the learned Courts below have erred in rejecting the application for temporary injunction as the plaintiff established her possession in the suit property, which was as a matter of fact admitted by the defendants and therefore, the temporary injunction ought to have been granted till the suit is decided by the learned trial Court. She also submitted that this Court while issuing notices in the present writ petition has granted exparte status quo order in her favour on 7.10.2010. 6. On the other hand, Mr. O.P. Boob, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that there was no agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff for sale of the suit property and on S.B.CWP NO.9236/2010 - Rekha Kavi v. Surendra Bohra and ors. 6. On the other hand, Mr. O.P. Boob, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that there was no agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff for sale of the suit property and on S.B.CWP NO.9236/2010 - Rekha Kavi v. Surendra Bohra and ors. account of default in payment under the said agreement with Prakash Chaudhary dated 10.12.2007, the said agreement was revoked and balance amount was refunded back to the defendant No.2 Prakash Chaudhary and a fresh agreement to this effect has also again been entered into between the parties on 2.4.2009 vide Annex.R/7 produced along with his reply to the writ petition. He has also drawn the attention of the Court towards copy of the original agreement (P.79 of paper book), which showed that the agreement was entered into for the purchase of the said property on 10.12.2007 between Surendra Bohra and Prakash Chaudhary and the name of present plaintiff - petitioner Rekha Kavi does not appear to be in the said agreement which casts a serious doubt on the alleged agreement produced by the plaintiff petitioner. 7. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that in absence of any evidence produced by the plaintiff for claiming possession on the strength of her alleged agreement to purchase the suit property along with defendant No.2 Prakash Chaudhary, she is not entitled to get any temporary injunction in her favour. 8. The documents placed on record by the respective parties is the evidence yet to be proved in the suit and therefore, no comment is required to be made on the same at this stage, lest it will S.B.CWP NO.9236/2010 - Rekha Kavi v. Surendra Bohra and ors. adversely affect the parties. This Court is satisfied that the Courts below were justified in refusing the temporary injunction to the plaintiff. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.