IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.517 of 2009 Rabindra Nath Srivastava, son of late Ram Kishun Prasad, resident of Village- Ekdanga, Mouza-Nerui, P.O. Bhagwanpur, P.S. Mirganj, District- Gopalganj ---- Plaintiff ---- Appellant ---- Petitioner. Versus 1. Umesh Prasad, son of late Kirpa Shankar 2. Tuna Prasad, son of late Kirpa Shankar Prasad. 3. Subhash Prasad Srivastava, son of late Girija Shankar Prasad. 4. Sunil Prasad Srivastava, son of late Girija Shankar Prasad, all are residents of Village-Ekdanga, Mouja Nerui, P.O. Bhagwanpur, P.S.- Mirganj, District-Gopalganj. 5. Sudama Prasad, son of Daya Shankar Lal, resident of Village- Loherbali, P.O. Bishunpura Bazaar, P.S. Vaghura Ghat, District-Devaria (U.p.) 6. Sathis Prasad Srivastava, son of late Satya Narayan Lal, resident of Village-Hathwa, P.O. Kattaya, P.S. Katteya, District-Gopalganj. 7. Kusum Devi, wife of Sudhakar Lal D/O Kit late Ram Kishun Lal, resident of Village-Sadhepur, P.O. Bathua Bazar, P.S. Fulwaria, District-Gopalganj ---- Defendants --- Respondent Ist Set. 8. Sharda Devi, wife of late Gajendra Pratap Srivastava 9. Abhinaya Kumar Srivastava 10. Mukesh Kumar Srivastava 11. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava 12. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava 13. Amrish Kumar Srivastava, 9 to 13 are sons of late Gajendra Pratap Srivastava 14. Birendra Pratap Srivastava, son of late Ram Kishun Prasad, all are residents of Village-Mouja- Nerui, Mouja Ekdanga, P.O. Bhagwanpur, P.S. Mirganj, District- Gaopalganj ---Plaintiffs---Appellants---Respondents IInd Set --- Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- 4. 23.11.2011 Heard Mr. Ajit Lal for the petitioner. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this civil revision application 2 under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and is aggrieved by the order dated 22.1.2009, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C. No.IV, Gopalganj, in Misc. Appeal No. 14 of 2006/03 of 2007, whereby his appeal against the order of the learned trial court refusing ad-interim injunction, has been upheld. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The present petitioner has instituted Title Suit No. 188 of 2005, in the court of the learned Munsif at Gopalganj. He filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking ad interim injunction against the defendant to restrain them from proceeding with further construction on the suit land. The learned trial court rejected the application on the ground that the plaintiff has no Prima Facie case to go to trial court, and no irreparable injury will be done, if the order of injunction is denied to him. He has further held that in fact irreparable injury will be done to the defendant, if the order of injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff because the defendants are in possession of the suit land. Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff preferred 3 appeal which has been dismissed by the impugned order. We agree with the reasoning assigned by the two courts rejecting the application under Order 39, Rule 1, read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The civil revision application is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)