ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 19, Jaipur Metropolitan (HQr Sanganer) whereby, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 101/2018 preferred by the respondent defendant against the order dated 14.10.2019 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 26, Jaipur Metropolitan (Hqrs. Sanganer) allowing the application filed by the appellant-plaintiff for temporary injunction, has been allowed. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-respondent claiming that the Plot No. 65, Purusharth Nagar-A Extention, Jagatpura was allotted to him by the Vikas Bhawan Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti vide allotment letter dated 02.09.1987, on which he raised construction of a two feet Pakka boundary wall. Alleging that the defendant was trying to encroach upon the land of his plot, he filed the suit. Alongwith the suit, he filed an application seeking temporary injunction praying therein that during the pendency of the suit, defendant be restrained from interfering with peaceful possession of the plaintiff on his plot. The defendant in his reply to the temporary injunction application submitted that he is the owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 396, Village Jagatpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, which he has purchased from the erstwhile Khatedar and has chalked out a residential scheme after getting the land converted from the Jaipur Development Authority under Section 90-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956 and the land in dispute is part of this Khasra Number. Ownership as well as possession of the plaintiff over the land in question was denied. The learned Trial Court has, vide its order dated 14.10.2019, allowed the application filed by the plaintiff for temporary injunction. 3. The defendant-respondent herein successfully challenged the order of the learned trial Court as stated here-in-above. 4. Assailing the order dated 05.02.2020, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the material on record it was apparent that he was in possession of the land in question, which was allotted to him way back in the year 1987 by the Vikas Bhawan Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti. He submits that his name as allottee of the plot, also figures in the list of allottees of Purusharth Nagar-A Extention Scheme by Vikas Bhawan Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Jaipur as published by the JDA. He submits that his name as allottee of the plot, also figures in the list of allottees of Purusharth Nagar-A Extention Scheme by Vikas Bhawan Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Jaipur as published by the JDA. He submitted that the order of the learned Appellate Court dated 05.02.2020 interfering with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-defendant submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in allowing the temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff even after observing that the plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence to substantiate his plea about possession of the land in question. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Perusal of the order dated 14.10.2019 reveals that it was categorically observed by the learned Trial Court that plaintiff has failed to produce on record any evidence to show his possession over the land in question. It is trite law that in absence of possession, relief of injunction could not have been granted to the plaintiff. The learned trial Court definitely erred in allowing the T.I. Application in the teeth of aforesaid observation by holding that question as to who is in possession, shall be decided after recording evidence and, therefore, it was in the interest of justice to direct the parties to maintain status quo till then. 8. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since he is allottee of the plot in question as is also disclosed from the list published by the Jaipur Development Authority and hence his possession over the land stood established, does not merit acceptance as mere allotment letter does not ipso facto establish his possession over the land in question. 9. In these circumstances, the learned Appellate Court committed no error in reversing the order of the learned trial Court. 10. I find no perversity and illegality in the order impugned dated 02.05.2020 warranting interference by this Court under supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.