Short Note : 1. The plaintiff-non-applicant No. 1 Nannekhan instituted a suit against the applicant and non-applicant No. 2 in respect of a plot of land in village Khachrod for which he claimed to be in possession under a Patta granted by the village Gram panchayat sometime in 1964. In the suit instituted by him it was alleged that while he was in possession of the said plot of land the applicant and non applicant No. 2 not only interfered with its possession but took steps to dispossess him also. He, accordingly, prayed for an order of interim injunction to restrain the applicant and non-applicant No. 2 from interfering with his possession as also from dispossessing him. In reply to this application for an interim order, it was alleged by the applicant Gram Panchayat that the Patta relied upon by the plaintiff was not a valid Patta that legal steps were taken to dispossess the plaintiff from the disputed plot of land; that orders were passed by the Competent Authorities to dispossess the plaintiff from the said plot of land; that appeals filed by the plaintiff against such orders were dismissed and that on the date of the suit the plaintiff was not in actual possession of the disputed plot of land. In support of their respective claims, both the parties filed affidavits and some documents also. The learned trial Judge on a consideration of the facts alleged in the application in reply to this application in the documents and in the affidavits took the view that both parties should maintain the status quo with regard to the plot of land. An appeal against that order was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. Held : The question as to whether the plaintiff was or was not legally entitled to the possession of the disputed plot of land cannot be decided at this stage. According to the plaintiff it was hem who was in lawful possession of the disputed plot of land on the date of suit. This claim made by the plaintiff was controverted by the defendants as according to them even before the present suit was instituted the plaintiff had not only been dispossessed but steps taken by him for being restored to possession were also unsuccessful. This claim made by the plaintiff was controverted by the defendants as according to them even before the present suit was instituted the plaintiff had not only been dispossessed but steps taken by him for being restored to possession were also unsuccessful. Reliance was placed on certain orders passed by the revenue authorities to show that under the provisions of law even after the plaintiff was dispossessed from the disputed plot of land his prayer for being restored to possession was not successful. On behalf of the plaintiff reference was made to certain documents and to the affidavits filed by him and on his behalf to show that even upto the date of suit he had not lost possession of the disputed plot of land. In the light of these respective contentions of both the parties, it was incumbent on the trial Court first to determine as to whether the plaintiff was or was not in possession of the disputed plot of land on the date of suit. If this question was to be answered in favour of the plaintiff, then the second question to be considered by the trial Court was as to whether the plaintiff's possession required to be protected till the suit was to be decided. Both these questions have neither been considered nor decided by the Courts below. On the contrary what has been done is that merely on the perusal of the rival claims made by both the parties, an order for maintenance of status quo with regard to the possession of the suit plot of land has been passed. Such an order is not likely to decide the main question, which had to be decided by the Courts below at the present stage of the suit. In case it is found that the plaintiff was not in accordance with fact in possession of the disputed plot of land on the date of suit, then no question arises for any restraint order being passed against the defendants. In these circumstances, the trial Court should first decide the aforesaid two questions and then pass such orders as the merits of the case require. Revision partly allowed.