IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.189 of 2008. Judgment Reserved on: 04.05.2009 Date of decision: 06.05.2009. Ganesh Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Mr.Bhupinder Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For Respondent-1: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent-2: Mr.Parmod Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent-3: Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.C. Verma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This is the plaintiff’s petition against the order passed by the learned District Judge in an appeal filed by the plaintiff- petitioner against the order passed by the learned trial Court dismissing her petition for interim injunction. The plaintiff filed this application in the suit preferred by her praying for interim orders with respect to the suit land and 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 more especially an injunction against the respondents-defendants. The learned trial Court on a consideration of the material on record declined the relief. An appeal was preferred to the learned District Judge who has again declined the relief. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has made submissions on the legality of the orders. Before taking up the petition for decision, I must deal with the preliminary objection that revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the appellate order refusing to grant injunction is not maintainable, as such, an application does not finally determine the rights of the parties. (See: Col.Anil Kak (Retd.) vs. Municipal Corporation, Indore and Ors, JT 2005(8) SC 412). This petition is, therefore, treated as under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is by now well settled that concurrent findings on facts by the Courts below cannot be interfered in revisional proceedings against interim orders. (See: The Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Suresh Chandra Jaipuria and Another, AIR 1976 SC 2621 and Terene Traders vs. Ramesh Chandra Jamnadass & Co. and Another, AIR 1987 SC 1492). I have refrained from entering into the domain of discussing facts as the learned Court below has considered the documents and material on the record of the case. The suit of the plaintiff has not been disposed of finally and all points have been 3 left open for decision. I, therefore, find no merit in this petition which is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. May 6, 2009. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.