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 mining lease in his favour was not possible.

4. The plaintiff-appellant has filed the civil suit seeking declaration against such consent/No Objection Certificate (NOC) as issued in favour of the said applicant Smt. Kamlesh Goyal as being void and ineffective and moved an application for grant of temporary injunction that has been rejected by the impugned order dated 07.11.2008.

5. The learned District Judge, Rajsamand has found that the appellant was not having any consent from the khatedar of the land in question and in the absence of such a consent, no lease could be granted to him as per the Marble Policy of the State Government. Learned Judge has also observed that by the communication dated 14.02.2008, the appellant was only informed of the position that NOC has been produced by the other applicant Smt. Kamlesh Goyal in relation to the area in question and yet, he was extended an opportunity of making submissions within 15 days. Learned District Judge observed that neither the applicant stated anything about ultimate decision on his application dated 14.08.2007 nor was it clarified if the application has been rejected but, in any case, for the plaintiff-appellant having failed to produce NOC from the khatedar, he could not be considered having a prima facie case in his favour. Certain submissions were also made questioning the validity of permission granted in favour of Smt. Kamlesh Goyal to which the learned District Judge observed that such questions could only be determined after evidence. The learned District Judge also observed that neither balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff nor would he suffer irreparable injury.

6. Seeking to question the order aforesaid, it is contended on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that the trustees of the temple in question (the khatedar) have no right to extend any such NOC in favour of the other applicant Smt. Kamlesh Goyal nor such consent/NOC could be said to be in accordance with law and rather the same is hit by the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. Alongwith the memo of appeal a photostat of the alleged Note-sheets in the file of the Mining Department have been produced as Annexure-1 and are sought to be referred to suggest that the Department itself is aware of the position that the land in question being in the khatedari of a deity, no such consent/NOC could be extended so as to create third party rights in deity's land. With reference to such Note-sheets, it is contended that the NOC as granted in favour of the other applicant Smt. Kamlesh Goyal remains illegal and non est.

7. The submissions as made by the learned counsel for the appellant hardly make out a case for interference in appeal against the order refusing grant of temporary injunction; and such submissions as made