- (1.) This will also dispute of C.R. Nos. 2373, 2374, 2375 and 2376 of 1989, as the question, involved is common in all the cases.
(2.) The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession. Along with suit they also moved an application for ad interim injunction. The same was contested on behalf of the defendants. The trial Court came to the conclusion that both the parties were claiming possession of the suit land and the revenue record is also of suspicious nature. Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain at this stage as to which party is in actual possession of the land in dispute. Therefore, both the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the land in dispute till the final disposal of the case. In appeal, the learned District Judge after appreciating the revenue entries found that the discretion exercised by the trial Court was not reasonable and the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit land according to the entries made in the revenue record. Consequently, he set aside the trial Court order and passed the ad interim order in favour of the plaintiffs retraining the defendants from taking forcible possession.
(3.) At the time of motion hearing on June 6, 1989, operation of the Appellate Court order was stayed.;