IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11369 of 2011 Shiv Pujan Pandey & Ors Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 03. 26.07.2011 The learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make necessary correction in the name of respondent no.3 and her husband’s name. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. J.P.Shukla appearing on behalf of the petitioners. This writ application has been filed against the order dated 21.04.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C. V, Bhabhua in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2 of 2009/1 of 2009 whereby the learned Court below allowed the Miscellaneous Appeal and set aside the order passed by the Court below on the application under order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Lower Appellate Court has set aside the order of status quo passed by the trial court only on the ground that regular rent receipt has been filed by the defendant and the plaintiff has filed only one rent receipt granted by the ex-landlord. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below found that the documentary evidence prima facie shows the possession of respondent, first party and, therefore, the petitioner has got no prima 2 facie case and balance of convenience is also not in favour of the petitioner. So far the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it may be stated here that it is well settled principles of law that in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the sufficiency or otherwise of the reasoning of the Court below cannot be decided. I, therefore, find that this writ application has no merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. Saurabh ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)