- (1.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the first appellate Court, the present revision has been filed by the plaintiff.
(2.) The suit was originally filed for bare injunction. While entertaining the suit, the trial Court thought it fit to direct both the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the alienation of the suit property in favour of third parties. When the suit came up for hearing on 31.3.2012, the ex-parte order passed on 12.3.2012, was set aside by the trial Court.
(3.) It is to be noted that no document was adverted to by the trial Court while passing an interim order directing both the parties to maintain status quo. When the said order was set aside on 31.3.3012, no document also was referred to by the trial Court. In other words, the first appellate Court was left with no materials produced in the application for injunction for taking a decision one way or the other. In fact, the first appellate Court has made an observation that no application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was pending disposal before the trial Court.;