ORDER 1. In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court. 2. The appellants have preferred this misc. appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) CPC claiming the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 21.01.2020 passed by the learned District Judge, Jalore in Civil Misc. Case No. 20/2019 (CIS No.20/2019) may kindly be reversed and while allowing the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, both the parties may be directed to maintain status quo in respect of possession and alienation of the land in question. Any other order favourable to the appellant may also be passed." 3. The appellants-plaintiffs have filed a suit before the District Judge, Jalore against the defendant-respondent for declaring the sale deed dated 15.06.2017 as illegal and null and void. The principle ground taken by the appellants-plaintiffs was that the property was wrongly entered in the name of Kishna S/o Kistura in the revenue record because Kishna was never having possession of the land. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs admits that Kishna sold the land of the respondent-defendant but submits that possession continues with them. He further submits that though the proceedings have been lodged before the revenue court but to get the protection from this Court, shall be important because if the property is alienated, the purpose of contesting the matter on merits shall stand defeated. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-defendant however, submits that the appellants-plaintiffs had knowledge of the sale since 2007 and has brought the present suit after a long delay in the year 2019. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-defendant also points out that the dispute regarding the mutation has already attained finality upto this Hon'ble Court and rest of the issue is pending before the Revenue Court, and thus, grant of any temporary injunction shall not be in the interest of justice. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is perfectly justified as the appellants-plaintiffs had the knowledge that the sale deed has taken place on 15.06.2007 whereas the current suit has been filed only on 24.07.2019 with a gross delay. Moreover, the appellants-plaintiffs have not been able to prove before the learned court below a single document regarding their possession, and thus, granting any relief at this stage shall be prejudicial to the rights of the respondent-defendant. 8. In view of the above, no cause of inference is made out, the appeal is dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.