IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No. 303 of 2007 1. Bipin Bihari Prasad @ Bipin Bihari Prasad Srivastava son of Late Bindeshwari Prasad 2. Smt.Sharda Devi @ Sardha Devi wife of Sri Bipin Bihari Prasad 3. Arun Kumar Srivastava 4. Manish Kumar Srivastava, both sons of Sri Bipin Bihari Prasad, all residents of Mohalla Chandmari, P.S. Town, P.O. Motihari, District East Champaran. …….Defendant Nos.1 to 4-Respondent Nos.1 to 4-Petitioners. Versus 1. Ashok Kumar Srivastava 2. Sunil Kumar Srivastava, both sons of Sri Bipin Bihari Prasad, both residents of Khorha, P.O. Mansiya, P.S. Sugauli, District East Champaran. ……Plaintiffs-Appellants-Opposite Party 1st set. 3. Smt. Nilam Devi daughter of Bipin Bihari Prasad , wife of Amarnath Kumar, resident of village Chhatauni, P.O. and P.S. Chhatauni, District East Champaran. ……Defendant No.5-Respondent No.5-Opposite party 2nd set. For the petitioners : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the Opposite parties : None. ----------- 02/ 14.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant nos.1 to 4-respondent nos.1 to 4-petitioners challenging order dated 08.01.2007 by which the learned District Judge, East Champaran while dismissing Miscellaneous Appeal No.22 of 2006 filed by the plaintiffs-appellants-opposite party 1st set observed that defendants shall not alienate the suit property without the permission of the court and the plaintiffs shall not be disturbed from the house till the decision of the suit. 3. It transpires that Partition Suit No.126 of 2006 was filed by opposite party 1st set for partition of their share in the suit 2 property along with other ancillary reliefs. However, during the pendency of the suit the plaintiffs filed an application for injunction for restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land and also from disturbing the plaintiffs’ possession. The said injunction application was rejected by the trial court on 19.07.2006. 4. Against the aforesaid order, the plaintiffs filed Miscellaneous Appeal No.22 of 2006 and after hearing the parties the learned lower appellate court dismissed the miscellaneous appeal by its impugned order dated 08.01.2007 holding that it was not such a case in which plaintiffs on success in that suit shall not be compensated and on refusal of prayer for injunction they will be put to irreparable loss, but after considering the trend and tendency of the defendants by the fact that they had even sold the suit land on 19.12.2006 during the hearing of the application which showed the whimsical act of the defendants, it was directed that the defendants shall not alienate the suit property without any permission from the court and the plaintiffs shall not be disturbed from the house till the decision of the suit. 5. The defendants are not aggrieved by the dismissal of the miscellaneous appeal rather they are aggrieved by the said observation by which the order of the trial court has been modified and they are restrained from alienating the suit properties and from disturbing the plaintiffs from the suit house. 6. The law is well settled in this regard that after the amendment of 1999 in the Code of Civil Procedure no revision 3 against any order in miscellaneous appeal affirming, reversing or modifying order of injunction passed by the trial court, shall lie in the High Court. Reference in this regard may be made to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., reported in A.I.R. 2003(6) SCC 675. 7. In the said circumstances, this civil revision is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed in terms of the said decision. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J)