ORDER
Hari Swarup, J.
1. This is a plaintiff’s application in revision against the order passed in appeal dismissing the plantiffs appeal. The plaintiff instituted a suit inter alia for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants Nos. 1 to 13 from obtaining possession from defendant No. 17 who was a supurdar appointed by the Criminal Courts in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. and for restraining the defendant No. 17 from delivering the possession of the property to the defendants Nos. 1 to 13. A prayer for the issue of permanent injunction in similar terms was moved by the plaintiff. This application was dismissed by the trial Court. Against that order the plaintiff went up in appeal. The appellate Court has held that the plaintiff had no prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was not in favour of granting the injunction.
2. The supurdar had been appointed by the Criminal Court and the possession of supurdar was the possession of the Criminal Court. It was Criminal Court who has directed the delivery of the property by its surpurdar to defendants Nos. 1 to 13. By the injunction claimed by the plaintiff in the present suit they had only sought, in effect the stay of the operation of the Criminal Court’s order which was obviously not permissible. Normally a Civil Court cannot stay the operation of an order of Criminal Court against which order it has no power to hear the appeal.
3. The circumstance that the property was in the custody of the Criminal Court and that on the finding that it had been taken possession of not from the plaintiff but from the defendants Nos. 1 to 13 it could not be held that the plaintiffs were in possession of the property on the date of suit or they would suffer irrecoverable injury if the order of the Criminal Court will be permitted to operate. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that a part of the property was in the possession of the plaintiff and an injunction could only be granted in respect of it. The contention is fruitless as, even if it be so, from the judgment it is clear that the application for injunction was only in respect of the property which was in possession of the supurdar appointed by the Criminal Court.
4. In the circumstances of the case and on the finding reached by it, the court below cannot be said to have committed any error of jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal. The revision, accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs.