CRP 86/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr SK Ghosh, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr H Maurya, learned coun sel for the respondents. The petitioners, who are the defendants in TS No.117 of 2009, have filed this application praying for intervention of this Court, in exercise of jurisdi ction under Article 227 of Constitution, in the judgment and order dated 23 Dece mber 2010 passed in Misc Appeal No.2/2009 by the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta, d ismissing the said appeal preferred by the present petitioners challenging the e xparte ad-interim order of injunction dated 29th April 2009 passed by the learne d Munsiff No.1, Barpeta, in Misc(J) Case No.24/2009, arising out of the said sui t. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that by an ad-interim order of mandatory injunction the tin chali in question was directed to be demolished, while directing the petitioners to remove the lock put in at t he entrance gate and restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiffs from sui t land and the house as well as from disturbing and inconveniencing in any manne r whatsoever the peaceful possession & enjoyment of the suit land as well as the house by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel submits that by way of ad-interim mand atory injunction, such order of demolition ought not to have been passed. It has also been submitted that since the injunction matter is yet to be disposed of, status quo as regards the tin chali in question be directed to be maintained. It has further been submitted that the present respondents had already taken over possession of the land and are now possessing the same. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that by order passed o n 29th April 2009 by learned Munsiff No.1, Barpeta, has not directed demolition of any structure and what was directed is to remove the lock from the entrance g ate as well as from the tin chali in question, apart from directing not to cause any disturbance or inconvenience in any manner whatsoever in the peaceful posse ssion and enjoyment of the suit land and the house by the present respondents. Perusal of order dated 29th April 2009 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, in aforesaid Misc(J) Case, it appears that there was no direction issued for demolition of any tin chali, as contended by learned counsel for petitioners. Wh at directed was removal of the lock from the entrance gate as well as from the t in chali, apart from restraining the present petitioners from causing any distur bance or inconvenience in any manner whatsoever in the peaceful possession and e njoyment of the suit land and the house by the petitioners. As noticed above, it has been the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents are in possession of the property in questi on. It also appears that the main injunction matter is yet to be decided upon he aring all the parties concerned, though objections against the prayer for tempor ary injunction are stated to have been filed by the present petitioners. In view of the above, the revision is disposed of with a direction to th e learned Munsiff No.1, Barpeta, to decide the injunction matter upon hearing th e parties concerned. It is, however, made clear that the respondents-herein shal l not demolish any structure over the land in question. The order of ad-interim injunction, however, has not been interfered with. The revision petition is disposed of. No costs.