JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing impugned order dated 18.07.2007 (Annex.-13) passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) No. 3, Udaipur and order dated 20.09.2011 (Annex.-4) passed by Addl. District Judge No. 3, Udaipur in appeal No. 73/2008 filed against order dated 18.07.2007 passed by the trial Court whereby the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C. was rejected. The petitioner has further challenged notice dated 23.09.2011 (Annex,.-13) whereby auction proceedings was initiated for commercial shops situated opposite Head Post Office, Chetak Circle, Udaipur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide circular dated 01.04.2000 the Government of Rajasthan issued direction to the Collector and other authorities regarding removal of encroachments and providing alternate places in vicinity to the persons whose encroachments are removed. The petitioner's case is that he was in possession of a shop from which he was removed and as per circular dated 01.04.2000 the petitioner approached the respondent for allotment of alternate shop and proceedings was initiated by the respondent on file. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the meeting of the committee of the respondent resolution No. 5 was passed to the effect that the case of the petitioner for allotment of shop may be decided in the light of the circular dated 01.04.2000; but, instead of considering the case of the petitioner for allotment of shop, the respondent issued notification for allotment of shop upon Chetak Circle by auction proceedings. The petitioner submits that a resolution dated 12.05.2010 was passed before the conciliation committee for consideration and decision but without finalising the petitioner's case, the respondent issued notice for auction for allotment of shop on 23.09.2000, therefore, while quashing both the orders passed by the trial Court as well as appellate Court by which the prayer of interim injunction of the petitioner was refused, the respondent may be restrained from making auction in pursuance of notice dated 23.09.2011 till disposal of the suit. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court that number of documents were not placed before the trial Court but before the appellate Court certain documents were filed for taking on record under Order 41 Rule 27, C.P.C. and, inspite of passing order for taking those documents on record, the appellate Court did not consider those documents and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-plaintiff vide impugned judgment dated 20.09.2011 which is totally erroneous. 5. Contention of the petitioner's counsel is that inspite of the documentary evidence filed by the petitioner to prove that the proceedings for allotment is pending with the respondent Nagar Parishad, Udaipur the Addl. District Judge No. 3, Udaipur dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner which is totally erroneous. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused order dated 18.07.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) upon application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C. 7. It is revealed that before the trial Court no documentary evidence was produced by the petitioner-plaintiff to show that upon the disputed land the petitioner-plaintiff was pursuing business activity in the shop. More so, it is observed in the order that according to the petitioner-plaintiff himself in the year 1992 the U.I.T. and Municipal Council, Udaipur removed his cabin and, on the basis of the said pleading, the trial Court refused to accept the contention that the petitioner was pursuing any business in the shop at Chetak Circle for 13 years because no documentary evidence is produced on record to prove possession of the shop; meaning thereby, in the absence of any documentary evidence the trial Court rejected the prayer of the petitioner plaintiff for temporary injunction. 8. In my opinion, the petitioner-plaintiff failed to prove his possession upon the shop in question, therefore, no error has been committed by the trial Court in passing the order impugned rejecting the application for temporary injunction. 9. 8. In my opinion, the petitioner-plaintiff failed to prove his possession upon the shop in question, therefore, no error has been committed by the trial Court in passing the order impugned rejecting the application for temporary injunction. 9. With regard to the order passed by the appellate Court, it is worthwhile to observe that although certain documents were filed along with application filed under Order 41 Rule 27, C.P.C. but those documents were not related to possession of the petitioner upon any of the shops situated at Chetak Circle, therefore, the documents filed by the petitioner with regard to proceedings of the Municipal Council does not create any right in favour of the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the appellate Court. In this view of the matter, although documents were filed by the petitioner along with application under Order 41 Rule 27, C.P.C. no case is made out by the petitioner for interference. 10. I have also perused all the documents filed with this writ petition. In my opinion, the petitioner has failed to prove his possession ; more so, he himself has stated in his application that earlier he was removed in the year 1992 when he was pursuing business in Ashwani Bazar, Udaipur in the name of Jaisrinath Motors and, on 02.03.2005, he was again dispossessed from the shop, in which, he was in possession at Chetak Circle Scheme of the Municipal Council, Udaipur. In my opinion, in absence of any documentary evidence to prove that petitioner was pursuing any business it cannot be presumed that the trial Court committed any error while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any force.Writ petition dismissed. *******