Short Note : 1. The plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration of title, partition and separate possession of their share in the suit land. In this suit the defendant submitted an application on 27-9-73 to the trial Court under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with their possession of the suit land during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiffs opposed the said application. The plaintiffs submitted that they had submitted an application under section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code which was finally allowed in their favour by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior on 30-8-73 and that the possession of the land in question has been delivered to them through the revenue Court on 23-10-73. On 1-11-73 the plaintiffs filed an application and along with this application they filed certified copy of the Punchnama under which delivery of possession of the land was given to them by the revenue authorities 23-10-73. The trial Court rejected the application for temporary injunction on the ground that the defendants had no prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was not in their favour, Though the trial Court recorded the fact that the plaintiffs claimed to have received possession in pursuance of the order of the revenue Court no clear finding has been recorded by the trial Court. However, the trial Court observed that the contention of the plaintiff (it should have been defendants) that the revenue Courts should have stayed the proceedings before them until final disposal of the suit did not appear to be proper. From the tenor of the order of the trial Court it appears that the trial Court accepted the contention of the plaintiffs that they have received possession as claimed by them. The defendants preferred an appeal against the order of the trial Court. The lower appellate Court has held that as the plaintiffs claimed through a woman co-sharer and are outsiders and the defendants claimed to have been in possession by reason of a family arrangement the defendants had a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is also in their favour. The lower appellate Court therefore set aside the order of the trial Court and issued a temporary injunction restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with the possession of the defendants during the pendency of the suit. The lower appellate Court therefore set aside the order of the trial Court and issued a temporary injunction restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with the possession of the defendants during the pendency of the suit. However, the appellate Court did not consider whether the plaintiff have obtained possession of the disputed land through the revenue authorities as contended by them. Held : In this revision by the plaintiff; Shri P.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicants contended that the possession having already been delivered to the plaintiffs by the revenue authorities the lower appellate Court has erred in passing the impugned order. He drew my attention to the certified copy of the Punchnama filed in the trial Court which shows that possession was delivered to the plaintiffs on 23-10-73. A certified copy of the order passed by the Collector is also placed on record whereby an application of the defendants for stay of the delivery of possession was rejected on the, ground that the possession has already been delivered to the plaintiffs. Shri S.L. Garg, learned Advocate General submitted that since there is no finding about the delivery of possession by the Courts below the matter, should be sent back to the trial Court for reconsideration of the application of the defendants. However, I am of opinion that no useful purpose would be served by sending the matter for reconsideration by the trial Court. The documents that have been placed on record clearly show that the possession had already been delivered to the plaintiffs on 23-10-73 by the revenue Court. In the circumstances the trial Court was right in rejecting the application for temporary injunction and the appellate Court was not justified in interfering with the order of the trial Court. Revision allowed.