JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs :- "(i) The order dated 01.02.2018 (Annex.8) and 05.02.2018 (Annex.10) passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Nagaur in Civil Misc. Appeal No.32/2017 may kindly be set aside. (ii) In the alternative it is also prayed that the suit itself unnecessarily being filed by the plaintiff may kindly be rejected with costs. (iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner (iv) The cost of the writ petition be allowed in favour of the petitioner 2. The brief facts as noticed by this Court are that the plaintiff/respondents no.l & 2 filed a civil suit before the court of learned Civil Judge, Nagaur seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the petitioner-defendant. The suit was accompanied by an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. The bone of contention is that the defendant-petitioner is making construction of soak pit, which is stated to be an open land of Panchayat, and is in front of the house of plaintiff-respondents. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that temporary injunction was granted by the trial court vide order dated 20.9.2017 to the extent of that soak pit construction was permitted, however, the learned appellate court reversed the same by passing order dated 01.2.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that soak pit was constructed in the Panchayat's land with permission of Panchayat. 3. Counsel for the respondent refuted the submissions on the ground that soak pit is in front of his house and it is directly causing problem/nuisance to the respondents. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing record as well as photographs produced by both the sides, this Court finds that the soak pit is being constructed by the petitioner in front of house of respondents. The appellate court has rightly observed that a public land cannot be utilized for making soak pit as it would unnecessarily create public nuisance and shall be detrimental to public convenience. The appellate court has rightly observed that a public land cannot be utilized for making soak pit as it would unnecessarily create public nuisance and shall be detrimental to public convenience. This Court finds that the order passed by the learned appellate court dated 01.2.2018 is justified and nobody can be permitted to make soak pit outside the house of a person, particularly, when there is serious objection from the person directly suffering frontage of soak pit against his house. Thus, no case of interference is made out in writ jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that observations made in this order shall not prejudice the courts below while deciding right of ownership over the property in-question.