IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No. 2140 of 2006 1. MANAGER CHAUDHARY @ MANAGER YADAV son of late Baldeo Chaudhary, 2. Dinesh Kumar Yadav son of Sawami Nath Yadav, 3. Anil Kumar Yadav son of Shri Manager Chaudhary, residents of village Thepahan, P.S. and P.O. Ziradei, District Siwan, … Defendants 3rd Set Appellants/Petitioners Versus 1. BIDYAWATI DEVI wife of Ramadhar Chaudhary, resident of village Titra Tola, Kishunpur, P.O. Titira, P.S. Mairwa, District Siwan, …Plaintiff/Respondent/O.P.Ist Set 2. Duth Nath Sah, son of late Bahadur Singh, resident of village Kshatrapura, P.S. Bharparani, P.O. Majhauli Raj, District Deoria, at present resident of village Titira Tola, Bishunpur, P.O. Titira, P.S. Mairwa, District Siwan, …Defendant/Respondent 2nd Set 3. Suchit Singh son of late Bahadur Singh, resident of village Kshatrapura, P.S. Bhatpar Rani, P.O. Majhauli Raj, District Deoria, at present resident of village Titira Tola, Bishunpura, P.O. Titira, P.S. Mairwa, District Siwan, 4. Bijay Kumar Singh son of Ram Ekbal Singh, resident of village Jamsikari, P.O. Bhada, P.S. Siwan Muffasil, District Siwan, 5. Anil Singh son of late Ram Nath Singh, resident of resident of village Titira Tola, Bishunpur, P.O. Titira, P.S. Mairwa, District Siwan, … … …Defendants/Respondents/O.P.3rd Set ..Opposite Parties For the Petitioners: Mr. Chandra Kant, Advocate ----------- 3 20.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The defendants 3rd set-appellants-petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment dated 25th September, 2006 delivered by the Additional District Judge, FTC I, Siwan, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 24 of 2001, whereby he has 2 confirmed the order dated 28.07.2001 passed by the Munsif II, Siwan in Title Suit No. 155 of 1998 allowing the plaintiff’s petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure(hereinafter to be referred to as “the Code”) by directing both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property during the pendency of the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in possession of the suit property, which is apparent from several documents; as such, the order of maintaining status quo ought not have been granted by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. It is further contended that no relief of permanent injunction was sought by the plaintiff, therefore, no interim protection could have been given to him under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code even if it is found by the court that prima facie case and balance of convenience are in favour of the plaintiff and he would be put to irreparable loss if the interim protection is not granted. In support of his aforesaid submission learned counsel relies upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Cotton Corporation of India Limited v. United Industrial 3 Bank Limited and others, reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court, 1272. I do not find any substance in the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioners. The title suit in question has been filed for grant of composite relief including for declaration that the defendants have got no right, title and interest as well as possession over the suit property. The plaintiff has filed a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code stating therein that during the pendency of the suit his possession is being disturbed by the defendants and, thus, they may be restrained from doing so. The trial court on consideration of rival submissions has come to the conclusion that prima facie case and balance of convenience are in favour of the plaintiff, which warrant directing the parties to maintain status quo for the reason that after execution of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff the defendants are going on executing several sale deeds between themselves with a view to complicate the situation. It has also been recorded that in that view of the matter, if the order of restrainment is not passed, the plaintiff would be put to irreparable loss. All these findings have been affirmed by 4 the lower appellate court and this Court also does not find any reason to disturb those concurrent findings. In the present case, the court below has not restrained one party, rather it has restrained both the parties and in fact, it has directed both the parties to maintain status quo with the sole purpose that before determination of the lis, nature or right of the parties remained protected. So far the decision rendered in Cotton Corporation of India Limited(supra) by the Apex Court is concerned, in my opinion, it was on different issue, as against the provision under section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, temporary injunction was granted to a party which was found incorrect by the Supreme Court. Thus, the ratio decided in the aforesaid case is not at all applicable in the present case. In view of the above, I do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the court concerned in passing the order under challenge. This Civil Revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)