IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.577 of 2009 1. Ram Chandra Mahto, son of late Shakun Mahto, resident of Mohalla-Padumpur, P.S. Mashrak, P.O. Dumarsan Bargara, District- Saran. 2. Sunil Kr. Singh 3. Anil Singh 4. Pappu Singh, sl.nos. 2 to 4 are sons of late Bachcha Singh, resident of Mohalla-Rajpatti Gola Karn Kudariyan, P.O. Mashrakh, P.S. Mashrakh, and District- Saran. 5. Dina Nath Tiwary, son of Raj Ballabh Tiwary. Resident of Mohalla-Karn Kudariyan, P.O. Dumarsan Bagra, P.S. Mashrakh, district- Saran. 6. Malti Devi, wife of Umakant Sah, P.O. Larsan, P.S. Mashrakh, District- Saran 7. Bimala Devi, wife of Bharat Sharma, resident of Mohalla-Dumarsan, P.O. Dumarsan Bangara, P.S. Mashrakh, District-Saran. 8. Mohari Devi, wife of Mehath Rai 9. Kamal Kishore Rai, son of Mangal Rai. 10. Birendra Rai, son of Deb Nath Rai 11. Arun Sah Kashera alias Arun Sah, son of Ramdeo Sah, sl.no.9 to 11 are resident of Mohalla-Dumarsan, P.O. Dumarsan Bangra, P.S. Mshrakh, District-Saran. 12. Bhairo Lal, son of Julum Rai, resident of Mohalla Lakdee Padaul, P.O. Naweemej, P.S. Basantpur, District- Saran --- Defendants---- Appellants ---- Petitioners. Versus 1. Jhalo Devi, wife of Baijnath Rai, resident of Mohalla- Sultanpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District-Siwan. 2. Tetara Devi, wife of Binda Rai, resident of Mohalla- Kerwan, P.S. Isuapur, District-Saran --- Plaintiffs---- respondents---- Opposite Party ist set. 3. Lalpati, wife of Mohar Rai, resident of Mohalla- TGekeena, P.O. Morhowrah, P.S. Morhowrah, District- Saran at Chapra ---- Defendant 2nd party --- Respondents -- - Opposite Party 2nd set. ---------------------------------- 4. 25.11.2011 Heard Mr. Raghwendra Kumar for the petitioners, and Mr. Narendra Kumar for opposite party 2 nos. 1 and 2. The defendants have preferred this civil revision application under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and are aggrieved by the order dated 30.8.2008, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C. No.IV, Chapra, in Misc. Appeal No.23 of 2007, whereby he has dismissed the appeal, and has upheld the order of the learned trial court, whereby application for injunction was disposed of with the direction to the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit properties and not to alienate the same. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the plaintiffs (opposite parties herein) had filed an application under the provisions of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before the learned trial court in Title Suit No. 399 of 2004, for ad-interim injunction. The same was disposed of by order dated 4.5.2007, passed by the learned Sub-Ordinate Judge VII, Chapra. The learned trial court observed that the defendants are in possession of the suit lands and, therefore, balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the plaintiffs. In fact, balance of convenience lies in favour 3 of the defendants. The suit has been disposed of with the further direction that parties shall not change the nature and character of the suit lands, and shall not alienate the suit properties. The defendants felt aggrieved by the order of status quo, and preferred the aforesaid appeal which has been rejected by the impugned order. It has been held that the suit is not maintainable because no order of injunction was granted to the plaintiff. It appears to us that both the courts concurrently found, for the limited purpose of disposal of the injunction application, that the defendants are in possession of the suit properties. Therefore, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the defendants. In this background, the direction to maintain status quo with respect to the suit properties, and the further direction not to change the nature and character of the suit properties and not to alienate the same is an appropriate order. We do not see any justification for this civil revision application, and is indeed a frivolous application. In view of the position that the plaintiff’s application for injunction has been rejected, disposal of the suit may be expedited. The civil revision application is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.) 4