IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.585 of 2009 ARUN KUMAR PRAJAPAT & ORS. Versus SONI DEVI & ORS ----------- 2. 13.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The defendants-petitioners have filed this civil revision application against the order dated 28.2.2009 passed in Misc. Appeal No.4 of 2007 / 518/2004 by which the learned the appellate court has allowed the miscellaneous case of the plaintiff against the order of the trial court dated 31.8.2004 rejecting her application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned appellate court has directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no apprehension was expressed by the plaintiff that the defendants were going to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. Therefore, the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. is misconceived. He submits that the plaintiff has not prayed for any relief for confirmation of 2 possession in the plaint of the suit although in some portion of the plaint she has claimed possession over the plot in question. He submits that the defendants are in cultivating possession of the plot and, therefore, the order of status quo may come in their way in cultivating their plots. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the order of status-quo passed by the learned appellate court is clarified to the extent that the defendants shall not dispose of the property or create any encumbrances on the suit property without prior permission of the trial court in the matter, if at all necessary. However, if the defendants are in cultivating possession of the suit property, they shall enjoy the same and exercise their cultivating rights. With the above clarification in the status order, this civil revision application is disposed of. B.T. ( J. N. Singh, J.)