CRP 419/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B D AGARWAL Heard Shri A S Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the petitio ner. Also heard Shri S N Sarma, learned Standing counsel for the respondents. This revision application is directed against the order dated 12 .12.2003, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj in Misc Case No. 137/20 03 as well as the order dated 16.10.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kari mganj in Misc Appeal No. 1/2004, rejecting the prayer for temporary injunction i n favour of the plaintiff/petitioner. As could be seen from the documents M/s. J C Roy & Company was g iven the dealership of POL at Karimganj under the terms and conditions set out i n the letter dated 30.8.1985. Thereafter, there was a change in the status of th e partnership firm i.e. M/s. J C Roy & Company. Ultimately, the husband of the p resent petitioner Late Bipul Kuma Das inherited the property by a deed of dissol ution of partnership dated 31.3.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner’s husband also died sometime in the month of May 1999. In view of these developments the Indian Oil Corporation stopped the supply of POL. It was followed by the cancellation of the dealership dated 21.3.2005. Apprehending dispossession from the Petrol Pump site, the petiti oner Smt. Archana Das has instituted the Title Suit No. 198/2003 seeking declara tion that she is the sole proprietor of the firm namely M/s. J C Roy & Company w ith further declaration to direct the defendants to recognize the plaintiff as t he owner of the Petrol Pump. The petitioner has also prayed for permanent injunc tion restraining the defendants not to interfere with the dealership and possess ion of the plaintiff’s firm. Initially an ad interim preventive order in the form of ’status quo’ was granted. Upon hearing both the sides, the said interim was also vacated which has been also affirmed by the Civil Judge in Misc Appeal No. 1/2004. Bein g aggrieved with the order of the appellate Court, this revision application has been filed. While arguing the case today, Shri Choudhury, learned Senior cou nsel for the petitioner did not press for any order so as to direct the responde nts to continue the supply of POL products or not to interfere with the dealersh ip issued in the name of M/s. J C Roy & Company at this stage. In other words, t he learned senior counsel has submitted that under the garb of impugned order, t he respondents are likely to dispossess the plaintiff/petitioner from the suit p roperty i.e. the petrol pump. On the other hand, Shri S N Sarma, learned standing counsel for the respondents, submitted that the entire property of the petrol pump belongs t o the Indian Oil Corporation and since the dealership has already been terminate d, the respondents are entitled to take the property in their possession. From the impugned orders I find that no finding or observation h as been made whether the property of the petrol pump belongs to the Indian Oil C orporation or the Dealer. In such an eventuality this Court cannot pass any orde r restraining the respondents from taking possession of the property. However, i n the interest of justice, it would be proper to direct the respondents to appro ach the trial Court seeking permission for taking possession of the property. If any such application is filed, the trial Court shall pass appropriate order as early as possible, upon hearing both sides. Any such order would be in the natur e of clarification of the earlier orders rejecting the prayer for temporary inju nction. With the aforesaid observations, this revision petition stands d isposed of.