CRP 142/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA In challenge is the judgment and order dated 31.03.2011 passed by the Civil Judg e, Tinsukia in Misc. Appeal no. 9/2009, dismissing the same and affirming the ju dgment and order dated 29.06.2009, passed by the learned Munsiff in Misc. (J) No . 1/2009, granting temporary injunction in favour of the opposite party/plaintif f by restraining the present petitioners, their agents, employees etc. from ente ring into the suit land said to be in possession of the opposite party/plaintiff . I have heard Ms. S Khataniar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. GP Bho wmik, learned counsel for the opposite party/plaintiff. According to the opposite party/plaintiff he along with his family members are i n occupation of the suit land measuring 4 Bighas 3 Kathas 8 Lesses by constructi ng a dwelling house thereon and also utilizing a portion thereof for cultivation . During his temporary absence, in the month of July, 2007, the petitioners/defe ndants tried to dispossess him from the suit land and pursued their attempts to do so even subsequent thereto. The suit was thus filed praying for a decree, int er alia, for declaration of his right, title and interest in the suit land and a lso for a permanent injunction. On an application for interim injunction to rest rain the petitioners/defendants from trespassing into the suit land, the learned trial Court after hearing the parties, by order dated 29.06.2009 rendered in Mi sc.(J) No.1/2009 granted the same. The pleaded case of the petitioners/defendants is that they are in possession of the suit land and that the opposite party/plaintiff illegally strayed into a pl ot of land measuring 1 Bigha within it. According to them, the disputed land is the subject matter of a proceeding under section 145 Cr.PC, which presently is u nder attachment. The learned Lower Appellate Court, on a perusal of the pleading s on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, affirmed the order of injunction passed by the learned trial Court. Ms. Khataniar has urged that the learned Courts below, having totally misread th e pleadings on record, the order of injunction ought to be vacated. According to her, having regard to the mutual possessory orientations of the parties and kee ping in view the three essential requisites in the matter of temporary injunctio n, the impugned order, in any view of matter, cannot be sustained. Mr. Bhowmik, while disputing that the suit land is one under attachment in a pro ceeding under 145 Cr.P.C., has argued that as both the courts below have, on an adequate consideration of the pleadings and other materials on record, granted t he temporary injunction, this Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdict ion, would not upset the concurrent findings. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the m aterials on record, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate, if t he suit is directed to be disposed of early by maintaining the present state of affairs. Having regard to the pleadings of the parties and the documents availab le on record, this Court is of the view that the conclusion recorded by the lear ned Courts below cannot be denounced to be either patently illegal or in defianc e of logic. As both the parties claim to be in possession of the suit land, it w ould be in the fitness of things that the order of injunction granted by the lea rned Courts below be sustained till the suit is finally disposed of. Ordered acc ordingly. The impugned judgment and order dated 31.03.2011 passed in Misc. Appea l no. 9/2009, therefore, does not warrant any interference. This petition, in view of the above determination, is therefore, rejected. The l earned trial Court is requested to administer the suit and dispose of the same a s early as possibly and latest by six (6) months herefrom. No costs.