JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 15.07.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Udaipur (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Civil Misc. Case No.06/2014, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Along with suit for injunction, the appellant has filed the aforesaid application for temporary injunction while claiming that in revenue village Paneriyon-ki-Madri, Hiran Magri, Sector-6, Udaipur, a plot measuring 16x40 (2400 square feet) is situated, where the appellant has constructed a house. It is contended that the said plot is the part of Khasra No.1135, which was transferred by the Collector, Udaipur vide order dated 15.04.1989 to the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur and now the said land of Khasra No.1135 is recorded as residential land in the revenue record. The appellant has claimed that as he is in possession of the said land since long, he has acquired right and title in the said plot on the basis of adverse possession and the Municipal Board, Udaipur or any other person has no right to disturb the right of the appellant in his peaceful possession. The appellant has further claimed that the Local Self Department of the State of Rajasthan had issued a circular on 24.01.2011 and declared that the possession of any person on Government land before 01.01.1991 is liable to be regularised and under the said circular, the appellant is entitled for issuance of patta in his favour by the Municipal Board, Udaipur. He has further claimed that he had filed an application before the officers of the Municipal Board for issuance of patta in his favour on 30.01.2014 and the same was registered on the same day and a public notice was issued by the Municipal Board in the Newspaper Rajasthan Patrika on 14.02.2014 inviting objections from the public at large within a period of one week. It is alleged that though the time for inviting objections was to be expired on 21.02.2014 but prior to that on 18.02.2014, the respondent Nagar Nigam had issued a notice to the appellant asking him to show cause why the house constructed on the plot in question be not demolished and he was asked to remove the possession within 24 hours. It is further alleged that the appellant was directed to submit his reply to the said notice on 19.09.2014 at 3:00 P.M. and he had submitted the reply but the Commissioner had returned the same while saying that though his case is genuine but on account of political pressure, the plot in question cannot be regularised in his favour. The appellant has claimed before the trial court that he has acquired right and title over the plot in question on account of adverse possession and he is ready to pay lawful fees for the purpose of issuance of patta and the Municipal Board, Udaipur has no legal right to dispossess him or to demolish his house and therefore, the Nagar Nigam should be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the appellant till the disposal of the suit. 3. The claim of the appellant was denied by the Municipal Board, Udaipur by filing reply to the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC. It was argued by the Municipal Board that the plot in question is the property of it and at present, the same is lying vacant and the appellant is not in possession of the said plot. It is further contended that the claim of the appellant that he is in possession of the plot in question since 1965 is false because at present, the age of the appellant is about 60 years and in the year 1965 he might be of 11-12 years and it is not believable that he is in possession of the same from the date when he was of 11-12 years of age. It is further claimed that few months before the appellant has encroached over the said plot and started construction and the Municipal Board has every right to dispossess such trespassers. It is further claimed that plot in question is not liable to be regularised in favour of the appellant. The Municipal Board has further alleged that the son of the appellant is a Ward Member of the Municipal Board, Udaipur and in connivance with the employees of the Municipal Board, he has encroached over the said plot and also hatched a conspiracy to take possession of vacant plots adjacent to the plot in question in the name of his son. The Municipal Board has also claimed that adjacent plots to the plot in question were allotted by the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur to several other persons and in the property register, the plot in question is mentioned as plot of the Municipal Board. On the basis of the said arguments, the Municipal Board has prayed that the application for temporary injunction filed by the appellant be dismissed. 4. A rejoinder to the reply of the Municipal Board was filed by the appellant, however, the trial court, after hearing the counsel for the parties, has held that the appellant has failed to prove prima facie case in his favour and, therefore, temporary injunction cannot be passed in his favour and against the respondents. While observing this, the learned trial court has dismissed the application for temporary injunction vide impugned order. 5. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Thanvi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Narendra Thanvi has argued that sufficient evidence was produced by the appellant before the trial court to prove that the appellant is in possession of the plot in question since long, however, the learned trial court has ignored the said documentary evidence without appreciating the same in right perspective. It is argued that as per the Government circular, the plot in question is liable to be regularised in favour of the appellant as he is in possession of the same since long. It is contended that the application filed by the appellant for regularisation is still pending with the Municipal Board and, therefore, looking to such circumstances, the trial court ought to have protected the right of the appellant till the decision of the application filed by the appellant for regularisation of the plot in question but the learned trial court without considering this aspect has rejected the application filed by the appellant for temporary injunction in illegal manner. 6. On the strength of the above arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the impugned order may kindly be set aside and the application seeking temporary injunction filed by the appellant before the trial court be ordered to be allowed. 7. 6. On the strength of the above arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the impugned order may kindly be set aside and the application seeking temporary injunction filed by the appellant before the trial court be ordered to be allowed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Board, Udaipur has argued that the appellant has failed to show his possession on the plot in question by documentary evidence and, therefore, the trial court has not committed any illegality in refusing to grant temporary injunction in favour of the appellant. It is further argued that the appellant has encroached over the vacant plot belonging to Nagar Nigam, Udaipur and started raising construction in illegal manner. He moved an application for regularisation of the plot in question in his favour though his case is not covered with the circular issued by the State Government for regularisation of old possession. It is further argued that the appellant in connivance with his son, who happened to be the Ward Member of the Municipal Board, Udaipur and the other employees of the Nagar Nigam, has tried to get the plot in question regularised in illegal manner. The appellant can only be termed as trespasser and no temporary injunction can be issued in favour of a trespasser. 8. On the strength of the above arguments, learned counsel for the respondents has prayed that the impugned order passed by the trial court is not required to be interfered with and the present appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned order. 10. While considering the case of the appellant on the point of prima facie case, the learned trial court has observed that to prove his continuous possession over the plot in question, the appellant has produced a copy of the application submitted by him in the Office of the Municipal Board, Udaipur, voter list, affidavits of Om Prakash, Manohar Lal and Govind Lal, identity card, map of revenue village of Paneriyon-ki-Madri Hiran Mangri Sector-6, Udaipur, photographs of the house, copy of mutation entry issued by the Nagar Nigam inviting objections etc. After carefully examining the documentary evidence, the trial court has observed that applications filed by the appellant for the purpose of regularisation of the plot in question with the respondent-Municipal Board are of the year 2014 only. In respect of the voter list along with the map and the affidavits, the trial court has observed that mere production of these documents does not prove the long and continuous possession of the appellant over the plot in question. In respect of the photographs of the plot in question, the trial court has observed that from the said photographs, it can be presumed that new construction is being raised on the plot in question. The trial court has, therefore, observed that no satisfactory proof is produced by the appellant to prove the fact that he is in peaceful and continuous possession of the plot in question since long and in such circumstances, the position of the appellant is not more than a trespasser and a shelter cannot be granted to a trespasser under the umbrella of justice. While observing this, the trial court has held that no prima facie case exists in favour of the appellant. 11. When on the basis of the documentary evidence, the appellant has failed to prove a prima facie case regarding his old possession over the plot in question, I am of the opinion that the court below has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application filed by the appellant for granting temporary injunction in his favour and against the respondents. The trial court has also rightly observed that when the appellant has failed to prove the prima facie case regarding his continuous and peaceful possession over the plot in question, his position is not more than a trespasser and a trespasser cannot claim protection under the umbrella of justice. For the purpose of proving prima facie case in his favour, a litigant has to produce reliable and sufficient evidence either oral or documentary before the court and when such evidence is not produced, then the court is not bound to issue restraint order against any person. As observed earlier, in this matter, the appellant has failed to produce reliable and sufficient evidence to the satisfaction of the trial court to prove the prima facie case in his favour, then the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. 12. As observed earlier, in this matter, the appellant has failed to produce reliable and sufficient evidence to the satisfaction of the trial court to prove the prima facie case in his favour, then the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. 12. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. 13. Since the appeal itself has been dismissed, the ad interim stay order dated 18.07.2014 is vacated and the stay petition is also dismissed.Appeal Dismissed - Ad Interim Stay Vacated. *******