IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2347 of 2006 1. DEENA NATH PURBEY, SON OF LATE RAM AUTAR PURBEY. 2. ARUN KUMAR PURBEY, SON OF LATE SATYA NARAIN PURBEY. BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SUBHANKARPUR, POHADI, P.S. BAHERA , DISTRICT-DARBHANGA…………………….PLAINTIFFS. ……………………………….APPELLANTS…………….PETITIONERS. Versus 1. OM PRAKASH KEJRIWAL, SON OF LATE BIRJU LAL KEJRIWAL. 2. RAJ KUMAR KEJRIWAL. 3. BINAY KUMAR KEJRIWAS, BOTH SONS OF LATE GAURI SHANKAR KEJRIWAL. 4. RATAN KUMAR KEJRIWAL. 5. RAMESH KUMAR KEJRIWAL, BOTH SONS OF LATE SITARAM KEJRIWAL. 6. SURESH KUMAR KEJRIWAL, SON OF LATE RADHA MOHAN KEJRIWAL. ALL RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-SHAMSERGANJ, KATKI BAZAR, P.S. DARBHANGA, TOWN AND DISTRICT-DARBHANGA…………... ………DEFENDANT IST PARTY…RESPONDENT……..OPP. PARTY. 7. VIDYA NAND LUHARUKA, SON OF LATE BADRI PRASAD LUHARUKA. 8. ASHOK KUMAR, SON OF BANWARI LAL. 9. BINOD KUMAR, SON OF BANWARI LAL. 10. MAHABIR PRASAD, SON OF LATE SHANKAR LAL. 11. SMT. SUMITRA DEVI, WIFE OF BANWARI LAL. 12. RAJ KUMAR, SON OF BANWARI LAL. 13. SMT. JATAN DEVI, WIFE OF AMOLOK CHAND JAIN. 14. ARBIND KUMARI DEVI, WIFE OF AMOLOK CHAND JAIN. 15. SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI JASHERAJ PURIYA, WIFE OF SHYAM SUNDAR JASERAJ PURIYA. 16. SMT. PUNAM KEJRIWAL, WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR KEJRIWAL. 17. SMT. KAILASHI KEJRIWAL, WIFE OF LATE SATYA NARAYAN KEJRIWAL. OPP. PARTY NOS.7 TO 17 ARE RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- SAUDAGAR-GOLLOBARA, P.S. DARBHANGA, TOWN AND DISTRICT-DARBHANGA…………………DEFENDANTS 2ND PARTY. ………….RESPONDENTS………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : M/s. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi , Senior Advocate and Dineshwar Prasad Singh, Advocate. ----------- 2 2. 29.10.2009. This Revision is directed against the order dated 21.11.2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C. IV, Darbhanga, in Miscellaneous Appeal No.13 of 2005, whereby he has withheld the rejection of the prayer of ad interim injunction made by the plaintiffs-appellants- petitioners under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Apex Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others, reported in (2003)6 Supreme Court Cases 675, has held that in view of the proviso substituted by Section 12(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment Act, 1999) with effect from 1.7.2002, Civil Revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. would not be maintainable. A Bench of this Court in Smt. Meena Devi Vs. Jagatarni Devi and another, reported in 2008(2) PLJR 451, relying upon the law laid down in Surya Dev Rai (Supra) has also held that Civil Revision cannot be entertained against an order passed in Miscellaneous Appeal either affirming or reversing or modifying any order regarding injunction passed by the trial court. In the facts and the circumstances, this Civil 3 Revision is held to be not maintainable and is, thus, dismissed. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to seek any other remedy available to them under law. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)