JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 17.10.2014 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagaur and appellate order dated 19.09.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Nagaur, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed and appeal filed by him was also dismissed respectively. 2. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against Municipal Board, Nagaur and Sub Divisional Officer, Nagaur based on the averments that he was Pujari of Sanwlaji temple and was in possession of the suit property, which forms part of the Patta said to have been issued to the said temple; it was claimed that the suit land was part of the temple and the defendants were seeking to disturb his possession and/or demolish the construction and, therefore, they may be restrained from doing so; along-with the suit, an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC was filed. 3. The application was opposed by the defendants, inter alia, indicating that the suit property vest in the Municipal Board and, as per the survey report, the plaintiff was trespasser on the land ad measuring 1215.39 sq. yards, regarding which, steps were being taken for his dispossession and the plaintiff in the garb of temple was seeking to mislead the Court; the map which was sought to be relied on also indicates Government land on three sides and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to any injunction. 4. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to produce any document pertaining to the land in dispute and as per the Patta produced by the plaintiff, the same indicates Government land on three sides, which clearly shows that the plaintiff had no right on the land in dispute and, consequently found that there was no prima facie case in his favour and also found absence of balance of convenience and irreparable injury and dismissed the application. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal. 6. The appellate court after hearing the parties, reiterated the finding recorded by the trial court and, consequently, dismissed the appeal. 7. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal. 6. The appellate court after hearing the parties, reiterated the finding recorded by the trial court and, consequently, dismissed the appeal. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not encroacher; at the stage of application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC when the petitioner was admittedly in possession of the land in question, it was incumbent that his possession, during the pendency of the suit, should have been protected and, therefore, both the courts below fell in error in dismissing the application/appeal. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. A perusal of the orders passed by both the courts below and the document (Annexure-4) filed by the petitioner, wherein, an application has been filed seeking correction of the boundaries and the map, it is apparent that the land in question is a Government land and the petitioner is a trespasser on the land in question and, therefore, not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court for protection of his wrongful possession. The findings recorded by both the courts below on prima facie case, concurrent in nature, cannot be faulted and do not call for any interference in extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 10. Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay application is also dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******