IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.495 of 2009 THE PRINCIPAL DEITY ALONG WITH OTHER DEITIES THROUGH ITS SHAEBIAT, SANDEEP, SON OF SRI JAGDISH PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BUMUAR, P.O. & P.S. MOHANPUR, DISTRICT GAYA..PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER Versus BAIJNATH PRASAD MUKHIYA, SON OF RAMESHWAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BUMUAR, P.O. & P.S. MOHANPUR, DISTRICT GAYA……………… DEFENDANT-OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 2. 31.03.2009 I.A. No. 1865 of 2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the interlocutory application and on merit of this application. For the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, the same is allowed and delay in filing this civil revision application is condoned. This civil revision application has been preferred by the plaintiff-petitioner against the order dated 9.4.2007 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 2007 by Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court, II), Gaya dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 9.4.2007 passed by 4th Subordinate Judge, Gaya in Misc. Case No.5/05 rejecting the application of the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 39 Rule 2 A of the Code of Civil Procedure for initiating a proceeding for - 2 - violation of the interim order passed in the aforesaid title suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier status quo order was passed in the suit and in spite of the same; the defendant sank a tube well on the disputed plot and, therefore, violated the said order of status quo. After considering the application of the plaintiff-petitioner, the learned courts below have come to the conclusion that mere sinking of tube well on the disputed land does not amount to violation of the order of status quo as the defendant has not put any construction on the disputed plot and has not tried to change the physical feature of the plot. In that view of the matter, the courts below have found no merit in the application of the plaintiff-petitioner for action against the defendant under Order 39 Rule 2 A of the C.P.C. This Court is in agreement with the views of the learned courts below and, therefore, does not find any merit in this civil revision application. The application is dismissed. - 3 - It goes without saying that if the defendant makes any attempt to change the physical feature of the disputed plot or tries to erect any structure on the same, the plaintiff-petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh petition before the court below for violation of the said order of status quo. B.T. (J.N. Singh, J.)