1. - Though listed in Court No. 4, the learned counsel for the appellant has made a mention stating urgency.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the impugned order dated 07.11.2008 as passed by the District Judge, Rajsamand in Misc. Case No. 31/2008, this Court is unable to find any illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity in the order so passed while rejecting the application for temporary injunction as moved by the plaintiff-appellant; and this Court is clearly of opinion that this appeal, being totally bereft of substance, does not merit admission.

3. A comprehension of the fact situation of the case as available from the impugned order makes it clear that on 14.08.2007 the plaintiff-appellant applied for grant of mining lease in relation to the particular delineated plot under his application bearing ML No. 30/2007. However, the appellant was informed by the Mining Department by its letter dated 14.02.2008 that in relation to the same area, the respondent No.5 Smt. Kamlesh Goyal had made an application bearing ML No. 4/2000 alongwith the consent letter from the khatedar of the land in question; and in those circumstances, granting of