JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against order dated 18.12.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittorgarh, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been rejected and order dated 04.04.2014 passed by Additional District Judge No. 3, Chittorgarh, whereby, the appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and confirmed the order dated 18.12.2013. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction against the respondents, inter alia, with the averments that petitioners were owners and in possession of the land comprised in Araji Nos. 1343/1536, 1343/1538 and 1343/1469; it was claimed that in the land belonging to the respondents, the petitioners are in use of 200 ft. wide road; the land around the petitioners' land has been acquired for the benefit of respondent Company and the respondents are preventing the plaintiffs from use of the road in question; alongwith the suit, application seeking temporary injunction was filed seeking restraint against the respondents from interfering in use of 200 ft. wide road. 3. A reply to the temporary injunction application was filed by the respondents and the plea raised in the temporary injunction application was contested. 4. The trial court after hearing the parties, by its impugned order dated 18.12.2013 came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to show that except for the so called way, they have no alternative way and further the 200 ft. wide road's existence was also not proved; the trial court also found the balance of convenience and issue relating to irreparable injury in favour of the defendants and rejected the application. 5. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners filed an appeal before Additional District Judge No. 3, Chittorgarh, who by his order dated 04.04.2014 upheld the order passed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that both the courts below fell in error in dismissing the application/appeal filed by the petitioners; it was proved on record that the way was in existence and the petitioners had no alternative way and, therefore the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - caveator supported the orders impugned passed by the courts below; it was submitted that concurrent findings have been recorded by both the courts below; there is no material available on record to support the contention of the plaintiffs and the courts below were justified in dismissing the application. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material placed on record. 9. The suit was filed seeking injunction, inter alia, claiming right of way from the respondents' land and for that purpose it was incumbent on the petitioners to establish, at least prima facie, by placing cogent material before the trial court regarding existence of alleged way and absence of any alternative way to reach the land owned by them; both the courts below have concurrently found that petitioners have failed to place any material on record on the above two aspects. 10. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that rejection of the application seeking temporary injunction and dismissal of appeal was unjustified; the concurrent orders passed by both the courts below do not call for any interference in the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 11. Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******