Short Note : Held: Both the Courts below have found that the plaintiff was in actual physical possession of the suit land on the date of suit. This finding is based on sufficient oral and documentary evidence. There were earlier proceedings for restoration of possession and the possession of the suit lands is delivered to the plaintiff through the agency of the revenue Court and necessary receipt about delivery of possession has been produced by the plaintiff. The Courts below have relied on the same and have, accordingly, believed the affidavits of the plaintiff and his witnesses. The case of the defendants was that since they were the recorded Bhumiswamis there was no justification for grant of temporary injunction against them. The plaintiff contended that despite the defendants before recorded Bhumiswamis he had been in actual physical possession of the suit lands as a sub-tenant. The factual possession about the plaintiff being in possession was more or less admitted and was not specifically denied. The Khasra entries support the case of the plaintiff's possession. There were proceedings in between the same parties before the Tahsildar and possession of the suit fields was delivered to the plaintiff prior to the institution of the suit. Even before this Court in reply to the application moved by the non-applicant-plaintiff complaining breach of the stay-order made by this Court, the defendants did not claim to be in actual physical possession of the suit lands. Actually speaking, the occasion for filing this revision by the plaintiff himself arose because the trial Court instead of specifically passing an order restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession, directed the parties to maintain status quo. In view of the specific finding that the plaintiff was in actual physical possession and not the defendants, there should have been no hitch in making a specific order restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. As a matter of fact, what was actually meant by the order impugned was that since the plaintiff is in actual possession, the status quo accordingly is to be maintained. As a matter of fact, what was actually meant by the order impugned was that since the plaintiff is in actual possession, the status quo accordingly is to be maintained. Because of this defect in the order impugned, there were occasions for unnecessary incident of quarrel in between the parties when the other side wanted to take advantage by contending that there was no specific order restraining the defendants, once the Courts below have taken a specific view and arrived at a finding that the plaintiff was in actual physical possession, they should have made an order specifically restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession in any manner making a vague order of maintaining status quo even in cases where the finding about actual possession is specifically in favour of one party, always becomes a cause of unnecessary complication. Order modified. Revision allowed.