Mahesh Bhagwati, J. - (1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 28.8.2010 and 3.8.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar and Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar respectively.
(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned orders, it is noticed that the plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit along-with an application for temporary injunction against the defendants-petitioners. The learned trial court, having analyzed the matter in detail, did not find the prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of plaintiff-petitioners and resultantly dismissed the application for temporary injunction vide order dated 3.8.2010. Aggrieved with the order dated 3.8.2010, the plaintiff-petitioners preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Neem Ka Thana. The learned appellate court, vide its order dated 28.8.2010 dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff-petitioners and affirmed the order of the trial court. Hence, this writ petition.
(3.) The learned trial court dismissed the application for temporary injunction observing that no document or evidence was produced by the plaintiff-petitioners showing the disputed property to be the public chowk and that the disputed well was constructed by their fore-fathers. The learned Appellate Court, having discussed the entire evidence ad-longum, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff-petitioners and affirmed the order of the trial court. There has been a concurrent finding of fact of both the courts below.;