ORDER
Milap Chandra Jain, J.
1. This is a revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Jalore dated February 24, 1993 by which the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Prema Ram has been allowed, order dated January 25, 1992 of the
learned Munsif, Jalore dismissing his application moved under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. has been set aside and the defendant-petitioner Hajari Ram has been restrained from transferring the suit plot in any manner and has been directed to maintain status quo in respect thereof.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner that the learned Civil Judge, Jalore has acted illegally and was material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the learned trial Court. He further contended that admittedly, lease-deed has been granted by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (RIICO), Jalore (defendant-respondent No. 2) in respect of the suit plot in favour of the defendant-petitioner and the plaintiff Prema Ram’s son Sawa Ram had earlier filed a similar suit and his injunction application was duly dismissed and these matters were not properly considered by the learned Civil Judge. He lastly contended that the defendant-petitioner would suffer irreparable injury by the impugned order by which he has been directed to maintain status quo as he would not be able to carry out his business.
3: It is well settled law that in such inter locutory matters, the appellate Court should not lightly interfere with the orders of the trial Court. But the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115, C.P.C. is very limited. It has been observed in Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad, AIR 1973 SC 76 para 5, as follows :–
“In our opinion the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first appellate Court. It is not the conclusion of the High Court that the first appellate Court had no jurisdiction to make the order that it made. The order of the first appellate Court may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with law or may not be in accordance with law, but one thing is clear that it had jurisdiction to make that order. It is not the case that the first appellate Court exercised its jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity. That being so, the
High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. See the decisions of this Court in Pandurang Dhondi v. Maruti Hrid Jadhav, (1966) 1 SCR 102 : AIR 1966 SC 153 and D.L.F. Housing & Construction Co. (P) Ltd., New Delhi v. Sarup Singh, (1970) 2 SCR 368 : AIR 1971 SC 2324.”
4. The defendant-petitioner is not going to suffer in any manner by the order by which he has been restrained from transferring the suit plot in any manner. The order directing him to maintain status quo does not mean that he cannot carry on his business there. It may be made clear that for the purpose or in connection with his business he can do anything on the suit plot.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the revision petition is summarily dismissed. The learned Munsif Jalore is directed to decide the suit before June, 1994.