JUDGMENT : Mahendra Kumar Goyal, J. 1. For the reasons stated in the application for early listing, the same is allowed. With the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, the appeal is heard today for admission. 2. The appeal is directed against the order dated 09.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby, the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed. 3. Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned trial Court has erred in dismissing the application only on ground of delay in filing the suit without appreciating its facts. 4. Learned counsel for the defendant/respondent No. 1, supporting the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, submitted that the learned trial Court has recorded categorical finding, based on material on record, that despite knowledge of dispute between the parties qua the land in question since the year 2005, the plaintiff did not file the suit for a period of about eight years and hence, taking conspectus of facts and circumstances of the case, it dismissed the temporary injunction application which does not suffer from any patent illegality. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Undisputedly, the appellant was aware of the dispute between the parties qua the land in question since the year 2005; still, it filed the suit along with temporary injunction application in the year 2013 only. I have gone through the contents of temporary injunction application filed by the appellant before the learned trial Court. It does not contain any averment as to imminent threat to the appellant as to its dispossession from the land in question and/or its alienation; rather, only bald and vague averments have been made in this regard. The relief of injunction is an equitable relief and the learned trial Court has committed no error in denying the same to the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case. This Court finds no perversity or illegality in the order dated 09.11.2016 requiring interference of this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.