JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC has been filed against the order dated 11.9.2012 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Jhunjhunu Camp Chirawa, whereby the temporary injunction Application No. 4/2010 has been dismissed. 2. The short facts of the case are that the present appellants have filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction along with application for temporary injunction stating therein that the property in dispute is ancestral property of the appellants and they were in continuous possession of the property, therefore temporary injunction should be granted in their favour not to dispossess them without due process of law. 3. The contentions of the respondents was that the present appellants are not the owner of the property and the property is in possession of the respondent No. 4 and various documents showing possession have been produced by the respondents. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the temporary injunction application has been rejected. Hence this appeal. 4. The contention of the present appellants is that they are in possession of the property and they are owners of the property. Learned court below has not considered the rival contentions. Respondents are having patta of 558 sq. yards only whereas the disputed land is 1061 sq. yards and commissioner report has not been considered rightly. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. The court below has rightly considered the fact that not a single document has been produced by the appellant in support of their contention that they are having possession over the disputed property. 7. yards and commissioner report has not been considered rightly. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. The court below has rightly considered the fact that not a single document has been produced by the appellant in support of their contention that they are having possession over the disputed property. 7. Per contra, earlier an application of temporary injunction was filed by the present appellants which was rejected wherein it has been stated that the present appellants are not having the possession over the land since 10.4.2004 and the learned court below has considered that the present appellants are not in possession of the property and at the same time they are not having any title deeds, the respondents are having the patta of disputed property,light water bills, permission for construction of water hut and various other documents, the court below has rightly considered that present appellants are not having the possession or title over the land and they are not having any prima facie case for issuing of any injunction and the application for grant of temporary injunction has rightly been rejected. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******