JUDGMENT 1. - The matter today comes up on an application being I .A. No. 2963/2013 filed by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 seeking vacation of the ad interim ex parte stay order dated 10.12.2010 granted by this Court in favour of the appellant. 2. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. The instant misc. appeal is directed against the order dated 21.10.2010 passed by learned Additional District judge No. 1, Bhilwara in Civil Misc. Case No. 89/2008 whereby, the application preferred by the appellant plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction was rejected. 4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order. 5. Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the Trial Court was totally unjustified in rejecting the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. filed by the appellant. He submits that the prima facie case and balance of convenience stands in favour of the appellant. He contends that the property in question is a joint property and if the respondents defendants alienate the same during the pendency of the suit, the appellant shall be put to irreparable loss. He thus prays that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents pleaded that the respondents' rights have been crystalised on the basis of the registered sale deeds and as against the same, the appellant does not have any documentary evidence to support the prayer for grant of temporary injunction. He further pointed out that revenue litigation was also undertaken by the appellant on the basis of the very same partition deed. The appellant failed till the Revenue Board and the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11439/2011 preferred by the appellant was also rejected by this Court on 5.12.2011. 7. The bone of contention between the parties is the right to the joint properties which were claimed to have been partitioned a long time back. The suit was filed by the appellant on basis of a partition deed. There is a contest between the parties regarding the execution and genuineness of the partition deed. 7. The bone of contention between the parties is the right to the joint properties which were claimed to have been partitioned a long time back. The suit was filed by the appellant on basis of a partition deed. There is a contest between the parties regarding the execution and genuineness of the partition deed. The same partition deed was subjected to revenue litigation which was decided against the appellant right upto this Court when this Court rejected the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11439/2011 preferred by the appellant by order dated 5.12.2011. 8. Having considered the impugned order and after going through the other material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court appropriately appreciated the material available on record and arrived at a just finding that there was no existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience or any apprehension of irreparable loss to the appellant so as to entitle him to a temporary injunction. The rights of the parties are yet to be finally adjudicated upon in the main suit. The temporary injunction application was rejected way-back in the year 2010. Thus, the order impugned does not call for any interference.Accordingly, the appeal and the stay application being devoid of any merit are hereby rejected. The application for vacation of stay order has become infructuous in view of the rejection of the appeal as well as the stay application and the same is also rejected.Appeal dismissed. *******