ORDER 1. This and the connected re­vision petition arise out of two appeals filed by the petitioners against the grant of injunctions in two suits in favour of the respondents. 2. It appears that a suit was filed by the petitioners for declaration and injunction in the Court of the learned Sub­ordinate Judge, Sarkaghat with respect to certain parcels of land. It was alleged that by an ex parte order in partition proceedings initiated by the respondents an order for partition had been obtain­ed by them and that they were attempt­ing to disturb the possession of the peti­tioners in the land in suit. An applica­tion was also made by the petitioners in that suit for the grant of an interim in­junction, and on Oct. 10, 1975 the learned Subordinate Judge made an order re­quiring the parties to maintain the status quo. He specifically found that it was not possible to hold which of the parties was in possession of the disputed land, but observing that it was necessary to maintain the position as it stood at the institution of the suit he made the order of "status quo". Subsequently the two suits, out of which the present revisions arise, were filed by the respondents. They claimed that pursuant to the parti­tion proceedings taken by them the ori­ginal block of land had been partitioned and the land in dispute had fallen to their portion and possession thereof was given to them. They prayed for an Injunction in the two suits restraining the petitioners from interfering with their possession. Simul­taneously they also filed an application for interim injunction. That application came on before the learned Subordinate Judge, Sarkaghat - the same learned Subordinate Judge who had already made the order of Oct. 10, 1975 in the earlier suit filed by the petitioners - and after considering further documentary evidence on the record he came to the conclusion that the respondents were in possession and that, therefore, they were entitled to an injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with their possession. He observed that the order dated Oct. 10, 1975 made earlier by him in the earlier suit called for reconsidera­tion inasmuch as all the facts had not been brought to his notice at the time the injunction was claimed. He observed that the order dated Oct. 10, 1975 made earlier by him in the earlier suit called for reconsidera­tion inasmuch as all the facts had not been brought to his notice at the time the injunction was claimed. Against the order of injunction granted by the learn­ed Subordinate Judge in the two suits the petitioners appealed, and the learned District Judge, Mandi, by his order dated Jan. 31, 1977, dismissed the two appeals. The petitioners now apply in revision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that an anomalous situa­tion had arisen between the parties in respect of the land in dispute. He points out that the learned Subordinate Judge having already held that the petitioners were in possession and on that basis granted the order dated Oct. 10, 1975 directing that the status quo be main­tained between the parties, could not subsequently make an order holding that the respondents were in possession of the same land and therefore could not grant an injunction in their favour. It is clear that the contention proceeds on a mis­conception of the facts. The order dated Oct. 10, 1975 made by the learned Sub­ordinate Judge in the earlier suit clearly stated that it was not possible for the court to determine which of the parties was in possession. The learned Subordi­nate Judge made an order directing the parties to observe a "status quo". The order was plainly not an order of in­junction made on the basis that the peti­tioners were in possession. There was nothing to prevent the learned Subordi­nate Judge from subsequently consider­ing the same matter again on the injunc­tion applications filed in the subsequent suits. He found, on further material be­fore him, that the respondents were in fact in possession. He was justified in making the order which he did. The learned District Judge rightly dismissed the appeals. I see no error of jurisdic­tion in the appellate order of the learn­ed District Judge. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the learned Subordinate Judge. Sarkaghat, could not, while pass­ing orders on the injunction applications in the subsequent two suits, make an order vacating the order dated Oct. 10, 1975 passed in the earlier suit. The ob­servation made by the learned Subordi­nate Judge does not, in my opinion, amount to an order of vacation. Sarkaghat, could not, while pass­ing orders on the injunction applications in the subsequent two suits, make an order vacating the order dated Oct. 10, 1975 passed in the earlier suit. The ob­servation made by the learned Subordi­nate Judge does not, in my opinion, amount to an order of vacation. The learned Subordinate Judge is bound to take up the injunction, application in the earlier suit and pass appropriate orders separately on that application. It is open to him to take into account the fact that he had already made the order of injunction, out of which the present pro­ceedings arise. 5. The revision petitions fail, and are dismissed. No costs. Revision Dismissed