CRP 217/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA (ORAL) Heard Mr. AD Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. Challenge in this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitutio n of India is made against the orders dated 04.01.2010 passed by the learned Mun siff No.1, Golaghat in Misc.(J) Case No.24/2009 directing both the parties to ma intain status-quo till disposal of the Title Suit No.15/2009 invoking jurisdicti on under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (code for short ), as well as the order dated 24.03.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Gola ghat in Misc.(A) Case No.1/2010 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitione rs against the aforesaid order dated 04.01.2010. 3. The orders have been assailed, inter alia, on the ground that those are passed (i) in flagrant disregard of law and (ii) in exercise of powers by the le arned trial Court as well as the appellate Court below in a manner not permitted by law and thereby causing failure of justice and occasioning grave injustice t o the petitioners. 4. The brief facts needed to be discussed for disposal of the instant revis ion petition at the motion stage are as follows: The respondent herein as plaintiff instituted a Title Suit being T.S. No . 15/2009 before the learned Munsiff No.1 Golaghat, arraying the petitioners her ein as defendants, wherein the following reliefs have been sought for. (a). By declaring that the plaintiff has the right, title and interest in the s uit land described in Schedule B of the plaint; (b). For recovery of Khas possession of the suit land by ejecting the defendants , their men and agents and by demolishing their illegal structures and removing them from the suit land; (c). For confirmation of possession of the land described in Schedule C of the plaint; (d). For permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents or a ny other person/persons claiming title through them, from interfering in the Pla intiff’s peaceful possession of the suit land; (e). Any other relief/reliefs, to which the plaintiff is entitled under law and equity, be granted to him; (f) For all costs of the suit be decreed against the defendants. 5. Along with the plaint, an application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC was filed being Misc.(J) Case No.1/2009 praying for granting ad interim tem porary injunction restraining the defendants/opposite parties from going on with the unauthorized construction and to maintain status quo on the suit land till disposal of the Title Suit. 6. The defendants/opposite parties contested the miscellaneous case by fili ng show cause contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff/petitioner does not hav e any right whatsoever over the land described in Schedule A of the petition a t any point of time. Further contending that the opposite party No.1 since 1989 is in uninterrupted and peaceful possession of the land shown in Schedule A wh ich included the alleged suit land shown in Schedule B to the knowledge of all concerned including the petitioner. More so, the opposite parties since long ba ck constructed a pucca structure over the land shown in Schedule B of the petiti on. In fact, the petitioner was allowed to occupy a part of the land shown in Sc hedule A by the opposite party No.1 and taking advantage of it the petitioner now with an intention to grab the entire land filed a false and frivolous suit a gainst the opposite parties and therefore, prayed for rejecting the prayer for g ranting ad interim temporary injunction by dismissing the miscellaneous case. 7. The learned trial Court took up the miscellaneous case on 04.01.2010 and after narrating the brief facts and upon perusal of the materials available on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case disposed of the m iscellaneous case as thus: Considering the above position, I am of the considered view that if an order to maintain status-quo of the suit land as on today by both the parties, i t will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, I direct both the parties to maintain status-quo of the sui t land as on today (i.e. on 04.01.2010) till disposal of the main title suit (T. S. No.15/2009) . 8. Being aggrieved with the order dated 04.01.2010 rendered by the learned trial Court in Misc.(J) Case No.1/2009 (old) and Misc.(J) Case No.24/2009 (new) arising out of T.S. No.15/2009, the opposite parties took up the matter in appea l being Misc. Appeal No.1/2010 before the learned Civil Judge, Golaghat. The lea rned appellate Court after discussing the arguments advanced by the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, dismissed the appeal by holdi ng as thus: The learned Munsiff No.1, Golaghat has directed the parties to maintain status-quo as on that day of order. The terms status-quo implies existing state of things at a given point of time. The purpose of temporary injunction is to p reserve the status-quo. In other words, it is misnomer of granting injunction directing the appe llants/defendants to restrain from entering into the suit land, but the facts an d circumstances of the case justified an order of status-quo as on that day, is fit and proper, and as such, this Court has found no ground to interfere with th e impugned order of the learned Munsiff No.1 Golaghat. Rather, this Court found to reinforce some lacunas that cropped up in the impugned order. As such, the ap peal is dismissed on contest with costs. 9. It has not been contended in the present petition that there is any erro r apparent on the face of the records, finding of the Courts below are perverse and/or the Courts below has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law and/o r has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irreg ularity while passing the impugned order under challenge. 10. I do not find any perversity, jurisdictional error or errors of law in p assing the impugned orders calling for interference of this Court in exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In view of the same, this Court finds that no interference is called for with the orders dated 04.01.2011 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Golaghat i n Misc.(J) Case No.24/2009 and 24.03.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Gol aghat in Misc.(A) Case No.1/2010 allowing the parties to maintain status-quo til l disposal of the suit. 12. In the result, the revision petition being devoid of any merit stands di smissed. No costs.