IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.419 of 2009 1. Jagdeo Singh. 2. Vinod Singh. Both are sons of late Jamun Singh. 3. Kaushalya Devi, wife of late Jamun Singh. All are residents of Mohalla- Bhattiyarisarai (Hanumanganj), P.S. Laheriasarai, District- Darbhanga. ….Plaintiff…Appellant…Petitioners. Versus Anand Kumar Bairolia, S/o late Chiranjib Lal Bairoliya, resident of Mohalla- Gullowara, P.S. Town, District- Darbhanga. ……Defendant…Respondent….Opp. Party. ----------- 09- 22.11.2011 Heard Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava for the petitioners, and Mr. Ganpati Trivedi for the opposite party. The appellants of Misc. Appeal No.10 of 2006 has preferred this civil revision application under the provisions of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and are aggrieved by the order dated 8.12.2008, passed by the learned District Judge, Darbhanga, whereby the appeal has been dismissed, the order of the learned trial court has been upheld, and it has been held that the appellants-plaintiffs are not entitled to order of Ad- Interim injunction. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Defendant no.1 (the opposite party herein) had 2 earlier instituted a suit for eviction of the present petitioners, inter alia, on the ground of personal necessity which was decreed and eviction was ordered for. The judgment and decree of the learned trial court was upheld up to the Supreme Court, whereafter the defendants of that suit have instituted the present Title Suit No.32 of 2003 for declaration of right, title and interest in the suit property. The present petitioners (the plaintiffs in the present Title Suit No.32 of 2003) filed an application under order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking Ad Interim injunction which was rejected by the learned trial court by his order dated 18.5.2006. The appeal of the present petitioners has been rejected by the impugned order. 3. We entirely agree with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two courts below that the plaintiffs of the present suit have not been able to make out a prima-facie case, and it appears to be an effort to deprive the landlord (the defendant) in the instant suit from enjoying the fruits of the decree in his eviction suit. Both the courts below have further concurrently held, for the purpose of disposal of the injunction application, that 3 the plaintiffs (the present petitioners) have not produced any documentary evidence at all to establish their right, title and interest in the suit property. It thus appears to us that the issues for the limited purpose of disposal of the injunction application are concluded by concurrent findings of facts. In such a situation, the civil revision application is not maintainable. Learned counsel for opposite party no.1 has rightly relied on the judgment in the Managing Director (MIG), Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanager, Hyderabad & Anr. vs. Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager (Purchase and Stores) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanager, Hyderabad (AIR 1973 SC 76). 4. This civil revision application is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/