, the injunction application was disposed of directing both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property of Schedule I. The learned senior counsel further submits that while the learned trial court discussed the matter at Patna High Court C.Misc. No.609 of 2023 dt.15-07-2025 4/7 length and recorded a finding that it was admitted by the defendants' side that Schedule I property belongs to the plaintiffs, still the learned trial court instead of only restraining the defendants, also ordered the plaintiffs to maintain status quo with regard to Schedule I property. The learned senior counsel further submits that this part of the order is wrong and, for this reason, the plaintiffs filed an application on 09.05.2019 seeking modification in the order to the extent that in the order dated 03.06.2017, the part order by which the plaintiffs have been directed to maintain status quo over the suit property, the same be expunged. The learned senior counsel further submits that it is an error apparent from the discussion made in the order dated 03.06.2017 and, therefore, the learned trial court ought to have considered this fact and modified the order dated 03.06.2017, but the learned trial court wrongly held that it was not a mistake and the learned Predecessor passed the order after considering the merits of the case. Thus, learned senior counsel submits that the impugned order needs to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. From the record, it is apparent that the order dated 03.06.2017 has been passed after Patna High Court C.Misc. No.609 of 2023 dt.15-07-2025 5/7 consideration of the facts and arguments of the parties and the plaintiffs did not object to the passing of the said order for about two years and only after two years, they filed an application for modification/correction in the order. This shows that the plaintiffs were in agreement with the order and for this reason they did not challenge the order for two years. Thus, learned counsel submits that the impugned order is correct and proper and does not require any interference by this Court.

6. Perused the record.

7. From perusal of record, I find that the learned trial court while passing the order dated 03.06.2017 has discussed the case of both the parties and, thereafter, passed an order directing both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to Schedule I property, which is disputed suit property as is apparent from the application dated 08.06.2007 filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code. Further perusal of record, especially written statement placed by the learned senior counsel for perusal of this Court, shows that there has not been any unequivocal admission of right, title and possession of the plaintiffs over Schedule I property by the defendants, rather it has been claimed that the defendants have also their claim over the Schedule I property Patna High Court C.Misc. No.609 of 2023 dt.15-07-2025 6/7 exclusively claimed by the plaintiffs. Therefore, restraining orders dated 03.06.2017 does not appear to be any mistake of fact or mistake of law as claimed by the learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs. Moreover, if the plaintiffs were aggrieved by the said order, proper course open to the plaintiffs was to approach the superior court by filing appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code and not by filing application under Section 151 of the Code before the same court. When there is specific provision in the Code, there could be no application of inherent powers of the Court. Further I find that the impugned order is a reasoned and speaking order and this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not like to interfere in such orders at the instance of the plaintiffs/petitioners.

8. In the light of cumulative reading of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality or irregularity and there appears no error of jurisdiction so as to interfere with the impugned order and hence, the impugned order dated 05.04.2023 passed by learned Sub Judge-VI, Patna City, in Title Suit No. 138 of 2009 is affirmed.

9. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same is Patna High Court C.Misc. No.609 of 2023 dt.15-07-2025 7/7 dismissed.

10. Consequently, pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) V.K.Pandey/-