CRP 404/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H N SARMA JUDGMENT (ORAL) The challenge made in this writ petition is an appellate judgment and or der dated 31.8.2007 passed by the Disttrict Judge, Sibasagar in Misc Appeal No 4 /06 affirming the order dated 24.4.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senio r Division), Sibasagar in Misc (J) Case No 86/2005 arising of TS No 76/2005 gran ting temporary injunction restraining the defendant/petitioner from selling the Schedule -A and B land as described in the plaint. 2. Mr Baruah, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has drawn my attention to the averments made in the plaint as well as the praye r made by the petitioner in the suit. The learned counsel has referring to the s tatements made in the injunction petition it is submitted that the whole claim o f the petitioner in the suit and in the injunction petition is for getting a dec laration in respect of B Schedule land and protection by way of interim injuncti on. The learned trial Court has granted injunction in respect of the entire suit land covering both A and B schedule land. Mr S Medhi, learned senior counsel submits that without restraining the petitioner from dealing with the A Schedule land, it is not possible to pass an injunction order in respect of the B Schedule land, inasmuch as, B Schedule land forms part of A Schedule land, which is not demarcated. 3. Upon consideration of submissions made by the learned counsel for the pa rties and on perusal of the pleadings and the impugned order , I find that the w hole claim of the plaintiff is in respect of B Schedule land. But B Schedule lan d is a part of A Schedule land. Although B Schedule land is a part of A Schedule land, B Schedule land is specifically described in the schedule to the plaint a s well as in the deed dated 14.12.93 and it is quite identifiable one. In that v iew of the matter, the learned trial Court committed jurisdictional error in gra nting injunction covering the entire A and B Schedule land. Hence, the impugned order stands modified and it would be operative only in respect of B Schedule la nd and the petitioner would not disturb the use of the B Schedule land by the re spondent-plaintiffs. 3. Subject to the aforesaid modification, this revision petition stands dis posed of.