IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.770 of 2007 1. SURYA NATH SINGH. 2. BHRIGU NATH SINGH. 3. SATYENDRA SINGH. ALL SONS OF LATE VIKRAMA SINGH. 4. RAMA SHANKAR SINGH, SON OF LATE BADRI SINGH. 5. RAM AVTAAR SINGH, SON OF LATE SHIV PD. SINGH. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JEWARI, P.O. PACHILAKHI, P.S. DURGAWATI IN THE DISTRICT-KAIMUR. ……….DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS IN THE COURT BELOW. ………………………………………...PETITIONERS. Versus 1. NIMA RAM, SON OF LATE LALU RAM. 2. ALAKH NIRANJAN RAM, SON OF NIMA RAM. BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JEWARI, P.O. PACHILAKHI, P.S. DURGAWATI, DISTRICT- KAIMUR. ….PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENTS IN THE COURT BELOW. ………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners: M/s. Durgesh Nandan Jha, A.K. Mallik and Awadhesh Pd. Singh, Advocates. For O.P. Nos.1 & 2: M/s. Ashok Kumar Pandey and Satyendra Pandey, Advocates. ----------- 2. 11.12.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the opposite parties. This Civil Revision is directed against the order 2 dated 11.1.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge-cum- Fast Track Court-III, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Misc. Appeal No.21/2005/1/2006, whereby he has dismissed the said appeal, upholding the order passed by the trial court in favour of the opposite parties, restraining the appellants from making any obstruction in any manner in the possession of the plaintiffs/respondents-1st set over the suit land till the disposal of the concerned title suit upon a petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of the Civil Procedure. This Court while dealing with the identical issue in Uma Shankar and others Vs. Dr. Hamid Hussain and another, Civil Revision No.1377 of 2006 disposed of on 26.10.2009, had followed the decision of the Apex Court in Surya Devi Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675, and held that the Civil Revision filed against the appellate order passed in Misc. Appeal, either upholding, allowing or reversing an order passed by trial court under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 in relation to grant of injunction is not maintainable . Admittedly, in this case, the trial court has allowed the petition filed by the plaintiff-opposite parties under Order XXXIX Rule 1 granting ad interim injunction. The matter was challenged before the appellate court in Misc. Appeal 3 No.21/2005/1.2006 and the same was dismissed upholding the trial court’s order. Thus, I hold that in view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court as well as this Court, this Civil Revision is not maintainable and, thus, is dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to seek any other remedy available to them under law. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)