JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 28.11.2014 passed by Civil Judge (North), City Udaipur and order dated 22.05.2015 passed by Additional District Judge No. 3, Udaipur, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been dismissed and appeal arising therefrom has been rejected by the two courts below, respectively. 2. The petitioner filed a suit along with an application seeking temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC; it was, inter alia, claimed that a plot ad measuring 302 sq. ft. was purchased by petitioner from its owner Bhanwar Lal Nagda by registered sale deed dated 25.03.2011; earlier the petitioner had filed suit seeking specific performance of the contract against said Bhanwar Lal Nagda and on account of execution of sale deed, the suit was withdrawn; based on the sale deed, it was claimed that the petitioner was in possession of the plot in question; it was alleged that the defendant-respondent sought to take possession of the plot in question on 12.08.2011 and, therefore, the application was filed and it was claimed that the respondent be restrained from interfering in petitioner's possession. 3. The respondent filed a reply and a counter temporary injunction application denying the averments made by the petitioner and claiming injunction against the petitioner from interfering in his possession. 4. After hearing the parties, the trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and accepted the temporary injunction filed by the respondent and directed the petitioner not to interfere in respondent's possession. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal. 6. The appellate court after hearing the parties, reiterated the findings recorded by the trial court and, consequently, dismissed the appeal upholding the order passed by the trial court. 7. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal. 6. The appellate court after hearing the parties, reiterated the findings recorded by the trial court and, consequently, dismissed the appeal upholding the order passed by the trial court. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the courts below were not justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner and accepting the application filed by the respondent; it was submitted that possession of the respondent was not proved at all on record and merely based on Commissioner's report, which was obtained during the course of suit filed by the petitioner for specific performance, the two courts below could not have come to the conclusion that the respondent was in possession of the plot in question and, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material placed on record. 9. The trial court while considering the issue of prima facie case came to the conclusion that the respondent was in possession of the plot in question and, therefore, the prima facie case was in his favour and against the petitioner and, consequently, issues pertaining to balance of convenience and irreparable injuries were also held against the petitioner. 10. 9. The trial court while considering the issue of prima facie case came to the conclusion that the respondent was in possession of the plot in question and, therefore, the prima facie case was in his favour and against the petitioner and, consequently, issues pertaining to balance of convenience and irreparable injuries were also held against the petitioner. 10. The first appellate court while dealing with the appeal and the aspect of possession has held as under:- " bl fcUnq ds lUnHkZ esa geus v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr vfHkys[kh; lkexzh dk/;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;kA bl ekeys esa vihykFkhZ Lo;a dks fooknxzLr Hkwfe ij dkfct gksus dk dFku djds vk;k gS ysfdu v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ij miyC/k vfHkys[k ds voyksdu ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd iwoZ esa nk;j okn la[;k 71@03 bZ0nh0 esa vihykFkhZ }kjk ;g mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd Hkaojyky us IyksV dk dCtk foi{kh dks lqiqnZ dj fn;k gS vkSj foi{kh us IyksV ij fuekZ.k dk;Z djokuk 'kq: dj fn;k gSA e0ua0 71@03 ls lacaf/kr vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ds izkFkZuk&i= esa fufeZr ipkZ ekSdk fnukad 9-5-2003 ds lkFk layXu uD'ks esa jsLiksMsUV ds firk dh nqdku dk njoktk fookfnr Hkw[k.M dh rjQ [kqyk jgrk gS] dk vadu fd;k gqvk gS rFkk vihykFkhZ dk dksbZ njoktk fooknxzLr Hkw[k.M dh vksj [kqyus dk mYys[k ugha gSA vihykFkhZ us fnukad 12-8-2011 dks jsLiksMsUV }kjk mls csn[ky fd;s tkus dk dksbZ Li"V dFku ugha fd;k gS u gh vfHkys[k ij ,slh dksbZ lk{; miyC/k gS ftlls ;g fu"d"kZ fy;k tkos fd jsLiksMsUV }kjk fnukad 12-8-2011 dks fookfnr Hkw[k.M ij dCtk fd;s tkus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k gksA bl izdkj vihykFkhZ dk fooknxzLr LFky ij izFken'"V;k dCtk gksus dh lk{; miyC/k ugha gS tcfd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr izys[k ds voyksdu ls ;g rF; Li"V gksrk gS fd fooknxzLr Hkw[k.M ij jsLiksMsUV vxLr 1997 ls yxkrkj dkfct jgs gSaA gLrxr ekeys esa nksuksa gh i{k vius i{k esa fodz; foys[k iath;u gksuk dgrs gSaA ;ksX; v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk fy;s x;s bl fu"d"kZ ls ge lger gSa fd fodz; foys[k ds iath;u ls fdl i{k dks vf/kd cy feysxk ;g lk{; ,oa fof/k dk fefJr iz'u gS rFkk bldk fuLrkj.k ewy okn esa mHk; i{kksa dh lk{; vkus ds ckn gh fd;k tkuk laHko gSA vr% gekjs fouez er esa ;ksX; v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk izFken'"V;k ekeys ds lanHkZ esa fy;k x;k fu"d"kZ fdlh Hkh izdkj ls fof/k fo:) ,oa fof/k ds foijhr ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA vr% gekjs fouez er esa izFken'"V;k ekeyk vihykFkhZ ds i{k esa ugha gSA " 11. The findings of both the courts below are concurrent in nature and counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the two courts below so as to require interference by this Court under its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The orders passed by both the courts below are just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.Petitions dismissed. *******