1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendant in the trial court in respect of property in dispute along with an application for temporary injunction. The trial court vide its order dated 21.7.2004 rejected the application for temporary injunction. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred, but the same was also dismissed by the first appellate court vide order dated 12.8.2009. Hence, the plaintiff has preferred the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the courts below committed an illegality in rejecting the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction, particularly; from the report of Commissioner itself, it is proved that the plaintiff was in possession of the property in dispute or the defendants were not in exclusive possession of the property in dispute. He, therefore, contended that both the orders passed by both the courts below, are liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the reason