JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.11.2010 whereby the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur, Camp Merta (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') has rejected the application of the plaintiff-appellant for granting temporary injunction against the respondents. 2. The appellant had filed a suit for partition in the trial court with the allegation that the properties mentioned in the Schedule A, B & C belonged to grand-father of the appellant and respondents and all are co-sharers in the said properties. It was alleged that the appellant had asked for partition of residential, agricultural and immovable properties, but the defendant respondents had refused to partition the said properties and are intending to sell it. Therefore, suit for partition of the properties mentioned in schedule A, B & C was filed. 3. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was also preferred and temporary injunction was sought against the defendant-respondents with a prayer that the respondents be restrained from alienating the properties mentioned in Schedule A & B and also be restrained from interfering in possession and use of such properties. The defendant-respondents filed a detailed reply to the application for temporary injunction and claimed that the property sought to be partitioned by the appellant had already been partitioned between the father of the appellant and father of respondents. It was also urged that some of the agricultural land, for which partition sought, was purchased by the respondents through registered sale deed from the father of the appellant and as such they are absolute owners of the said property. It was also contended that the father of the appellant had preferred a revenue suit for partition of the agricultural lands before the revenue Court in which the application for interim orders had already been dismissed. 4. The learned trial court after hearing counsel for the parties rejected the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. filed by the appellant vide its order dated 25.11.2010. 5. Being aggrieved with the order dated 25.11.2010, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. The counsel for the appellant argued that the learned trial court has grossly erred in rejecting the application for temporary injunction preferred by the appellant without taking into consideration all aspects of the matter. 5. Being aggrieved with the order dated 25.11.2010, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. The counsel for the appellant argued that the learned trial court has grossly erred in rejecting the application for temporary injunction preferred by the appellant without taking into consideration all aspects of the matter. It is further contended by the counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court has not given any finding in respect of the residential house for which the plaintiff-appellant had sought temporary injunction. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that earlier this Court vide judgment dated 7th Sept., 2009 remitted the matter to the trial court with a direction to decide afresh the application for temporary injunction, however, the learned trial court has not decided the application for temporary injunction as per the directions given by this Court in the above mentioned order. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents has argued that there is no illegality in the order dated 25.11.2010 and the learned trial court, after taking into consideration the Commissioner's report, the documents produced on behalf of the defendant-respondents has found that no prima facie case exists in favour of the appellants and the balance of convenience also does not lie in his favour. It is also contended that the learned trial court had rightly observed that if the temporary injunction is not granted in favour of the appellant, the appellant will not suffer any irreparable injury. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. The learned trial court has observed that father of the appellant filed a revenue suit against the respondents Arjun Ram, Jagdish and Amra Ram for partition of the some of the agriculture land mentioned in Schedule A & B before the Revenue Court, which declined to pass any interim order in favour of the plaintiff in that suit. Learned trial court has further observed that from the documents produced by the respondent-defendants in the reply to the application for temporary injunction, prima facie it appears that the partition of the immovable and movable properties had already taken place between the father of the appellant and his brother Prabhu Ram and if the appellant is having any right in the said property, he can claim the same from his father. The learned trial court has also observed that the appellant has concealed the fact regarding filing of revenue suit by his father and, therefore, after taking into consideration the several aspects of the matter, the learned trial court has found that the appellant has failed to prove prima facie case in his favour. The learned trial court further found that the balance of convenience also does not lie in favour of the appellant and the appellant has failed to show any irreparable loss which can cause to him if temporary injunction is not granted. 11. This Court, after careful examination of order passed by the learned trial court and considering the submissions made on behalf of the respondents, finds that the findings given by the learned trial court while rejecting the application for temporary injunction are based on documents produced on behalf of the appellant and the learned trial court has rightly taken into consideration the fact that father of the appellant has filed a revenue suit for partition of the agricultural land and in that revenue suit when no interim relief was granted by the revenue Court, the appellant without disclosing the said fact has preferred the suit for partition before the trial court for the same agriculture land and residence built upon it. The learned trial court was satisfied on the basis of material placed before it that the properties mentioned in Schedule A, B & C are in respective possession of the parties since long and there exists no reason to disturb the same arrangement by issuing any direction as interim measure. The learned trial court has rightly observed that the appellant can claim share in the properties from his father only and he can very well apply for impleadment as party in the suit preferred by his father before the revenue Court. 12. In view of the above observations and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any error in the order passed by the learned trial court hence, there is no force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******