IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.576 of 2009 1. Ramdeo Sah, son of late Pareman Sah 2. Subhash Sah, son of late Bhukhal Sah 3. Bir Bahadur Sah, son of late Bhukhal Sah, 4. Ganesh Sah, son of late Ram Lachchan Sah 5. Ram Chandra Sah, son of late Ram Lachchan Sah 6. Bishwanath Sah, son of late Brij Mohan Sah. 7. Kishnath Sah, son of late Brij Mohan Sah 8. Nirmal Sah, son of late Buchi Sah 9. Suresh Sah, son of late Buchi Sah., all resident of Village-Madar Khas, P.O. and P.S. Bijayipur, Paragana- Kuadi, District-Gopalganj --- Plaintiffs --- Appellants ---- Petitioners. Versus 1. Jagdish Sah, son of late Shankar Sah, resident of Village -Hariharpur Paragana Kuadi, P.O. & P.S. Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj. 2. Mohan Bhagat, son of late Pitambar Bhagat, resident of Village-Sudamachak, Paragana-Kuadi, P.O. & P.S. Vijayipur, District-Gopalganj 3. Gafur Miyan, son of Rajjak Miyan, resident of Village- Madar Khas, P.O. & P.S. Bijayipur, Paragana-Kuadi, District-Gopalganj ---- Defendants ---- Respondents ---- Respondents. ---------------------------------- 3. 29.11.2011 Heard Mr. Nitya Nand Mishra for the petitioners. The plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 219 of 2006 ,have preferred this civil revision application under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and are aggrieved by the order dated 6.1.2009, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C No.III, Gopalganj in Misc. Appeal No. 6 of 2007/3 of 2008, whereby their appeal has been dismissed, and the 2 order of the learned trial court rejecting their application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been upheld. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The present petitioners had instituted Title Suit No.219 of 2006 for declaration of right, title, and possession over the suit land. During pendencny of the suit, they filed application under the provisions of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has been rejected, leading to the aforesaid Misc. Appeal No. 6 of 2007/3 of 2008. The appeal has been rejected by the impugned order. Learned appellate court has rejected the same on the ground that, though the plaintiffs have been able to make out a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience also lies in their favour, but no irreparable injury will be done to the petitioners which can not be compensated in terms of money in case injunction application is rejected. This is a valid ground to reject the same. We agree with the impugned order. The civil revision application is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.) 3