JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 31.10.2014 passed by Civil Judge, Nagaur District, Nagaur and order dated 21.11.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Nagaur, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC and the appeal arising therefrom have been rejected respectively. 2. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents regarding land ad measuring 2 Bigha 12 Biswa comprised in Khasra No. 297 situated within revenue area of Nagaur; it was claimed that the petitioner was in possession of the land in dispute from the time of his father and ancestors and, as the petitioner was illiterate, the possession was not recorded in the revenue records; in the Khasra Parivartansheel for Samvat 2050 i.e. 1993-1994 petitioner's possession is recorded; it was alleged that on 24.03.2014 the employees of the respondents came to site and started digging foundation and demolish the pillars; it was prayed that the respondents be restrained from interfering in petitioner's possession. 3. Alongwith the suit an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC was filed seeking temporary injunction. 4. The application was opposed by the respondents; it was stated that the averments made were incorrect; the petitioner has never been in possession of the land in dispute; land has been recorded in the name of Municipality and as the petitioner was seeking to trespass on the land, he was being prevented from doing the same and, therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed. 5. The trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that while the petitioner has failed to produce any document, the respondents have produced the order dated 13.08.2012 passed by the District Collector, wherein, the land pertaining to Khasra No. 297 has been transferred to the Municipality and, therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was in possession of the land in dispute for a long time; the issues pertaining to balance of convenience and irreparable injury were also decided against the petitioner and the application was rejected. 6. The appellate court after hearing the parties reiterated the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. 7. 6. The appellate court after hearing the parties reiterated the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the courts below committed grave error of law in dismissing the application and the appeal; the petitioner has established his possession for over 50 years by way of Khasra Parivartansheel and various affidavits of the neighbours, which have not been taken into consideration by the courts below, resulting in grave injustice to the petitioner and, therefore, the orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the petitioner has failed to make out prima facie case in his favour; except for the Khasra Parivartansheel for Samvat 2050, the petitioner failed to produce any document indicating his possession and before the land was allotted to the Municipality by order dated 03.10.2012, the land in question was surveyed by the Tehsildar, Nagaur and no possession was found at the said site and, therefore, apparently possession of the petitioner was not established; the affidavits filed by the petitioner of the neighbours appear to be omnibus affidavits and the same by itself cannot prove the possession. 10. In view of the fact that the petitioner except for a document pertaining to the year 1993-1994, which by itself cannot prove petitioner's possession, has failed to produce any document whatsoever showing his alleged long possession over the land in question from the time of his father and ancestors and, therefore, it cannot be said that the courts below were not justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner so as to require interference by this Court in extra ordinary jurisdiction.Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******