JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows : This is an application by the petitioners under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated November 22, 1983 made by the learned District Judge, Howrah dismissing the Misc. Appeal No. 209 of 1983. 2. Petitioners and opposite party No.5 filed a suit being title suit No. 303 of 1983 for declaration and permanent injunction against the opposite parties 1 to 4. Petitioners allege that they were tenants under opposite parties 1 and 2 and the opposite parties had no right to forcibly evict them from the suit property. Petitioners filed an application for temporary injunction. 3. The learned Munsiff 3rd Court Howrah by order dated November 17, 1983 issued notice upon the defendants to show cause within seven days of service as to why the prayer for injunction should not be granted. The learned Munsiff however refused the prayer for interim injunction on the ground that there was no urgency. Petitioners challenged the said order of the learned Munsiff in Misc. Appeal No. 209 of 1983. The learned District Judge by the impugned order dated November 22, 1983 dismissed the appeal summarily. Petitioners have challenged the said order in the present revision case. 4. Mr. Haradhan Banerjee, learned Advocate for the petitioners, has argued that the petitioners are in possession of the suit property. They have claimed right of tenancy and have also produced some documents in support of their contention. Mr. Banerjee has argued that in the circumstances of the case the learned Munsiff ought to have granted the prayer for interim injunction as delay in granting the same would render the petitioners to be without remedy even if they win the suit ultimately. Mr. Banerjee has further argued that the learned District Judge acted illegally and with material irregularity when he dismissed the appeal summarily without considering the balance of convenience and inconvenience. The contention of Mr. Banerjee is that the order of the learned Judge was in excess of jurisdiction as be was not called upon the decide at that stage whether the petitioners had actually the tenancy rights. The matter should have been left for determination at the appropriate time. The contention of Mr. The contention of Mr. Banerjee is that the order of the learned Judge was in excess of jurisdiction as be was not called upon the decide at that stage whether the petitioners had actually the tenancy rights. The matter should have been left for determination at the appropriate time. The contention of Mr. Banerjee is that as the opposite parties are proceeding rapidly with their act of construction which threatened the possession of the petitioners prayer for ad interim injunction should have been granted Mr.Banerjee argues that in the circumstances of the case if no injunction is granted the petitioners will be without remedy even if they succeed in the suit. 5. Mr. Ranjit Kumar Banerjee and thereafter, Mr. Ashok Banerjee, learned Advocates for the opposite parties, have argued that the learned Judge was within his jurisdiction when he found that there was no prima facie case and as such there was no jurisdictional error. It has been argued that the petitioners are not in possession and they are only trying to create evidence of possession by having an injunction in their favour. It has been further argued that as there was no jurisdictional error this court should not interfere in revision even if the order of the learned judge is considered wrong. In support of this submission reference has been made to the case of (1) Managing Director (M.I.G.) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prosad Darway, AIR 1973 SC 76 . If this decision, it has been held that High Court should not interfere under section 115, C. P. Code even if the order is right or wrong or not in accordance with law or not unless the lower appellate court has exercised jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. 6. The petitioners in support of their contention have produced some documents. The learned Munsiff did not reject the prayer for interim injunction on the ground that there was no prima facie case. The learned Munsiff rejected the prayer for interim injunction because according to the learned Munsiff there 'has no urgency. The learned Judge has however held that the documents, namely, trade licence, bill book, identity card etc are not sufficient prima facie evidence to prove the lawful title and possession of the plaintiffs in any portion of the suit property. The learned Munsiff rejected the prayer for interim injunction because according to the learned Munsiff there 'has no urgency. The learned Judge has however held that the documents, namely, trade licence, bill book, identity card etc are not sufficient prima facie evidence to prove the lawful title and possession of the plaintiffs in any portion of the suit property. It appears that the question that was before the learned Judge was whether the learned Munsiff was correct in refusing the prayer for interim injunction. It is to be remembered that the application for temporary injunction is pending before the learned Munsiff. In the circumstances the observations made by the learned Judge will cause prejudice to the plaintiffs as the learned Judge has prejudiced the issues. Some documents have been produced by the petitioners in support of their contention. The matter was being heard ex-parte and the opposite parties had no opportunity to controvert the allegations of the petitioners. 7. Having regard to the circumstances of the case it appears that the learned judge acted with material irregularity when be came to a finding which was not warranted at that stage. The question was whether the circumstances of the case required granting of an interim injunction. The relevant point in this connections is whether the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay. In the circumstances I am unable to uphold the order of the learned District Judge. 8. Certain contentions have been urged by the learned Advocates for the both sides as to whether the petitioner 8 are in possession of the suit property. This contention should be properly dealt with by the learned Munsiff when the application for temporary injunction is heard. In the circumstances of the case the matter should go back to the learned Munsiff for bearing the application for temporary injunction on merits. As the matter is pending for some time end as the learned Advocates for the opposite parties have submitted that they have already made preparations for certain constructions on the property the application for temporary injunction should be heard as early as possible and preferably within one month. 9. As the matter is pending for some time end as the learned Advocates for the opposite parties have submitted that they have already made preparations for certain constructions on the property the application for temporary injunction should be heard as early as possible and preferably within one month. 9. The main controversy is whether the order granted by this Court regarding maintenance of status quo should continue till the hearing of the application for temporary injunction, The learned Advocate for the opposite parties has argued that the opposite parties would be seriously prejudiced if they are prevented from proceeding further with their construction work as the. building materials would be wasted. The learned Advocate for the petitioners on the other band submits that the petitioners would be without remedy if before the hearing of the application for temporary injunction they are evicted from the suit property. In the circumstances I am of opinion that status quo should be maintained till the hearing of the application for temporary injunction. I make it clear that I express no opinion regarding the respective merits of the case in the parties. The order for maintenance of status quo is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties that may be made before the learned Munsiff. The learned Munsiff will be free to decide the application for temporary injunction in accordance with law without being influenced in any way by any observation that may have been made in this order. 10. The revisional application is thus disposed of. The order of the learned Judge is set aside and the order of the learned Munsiff is modified. The application for temporary injunction is sent back to the learned Munsiff for hearing in accordance with law within one month from the date of communication of the order. Let the order be communicated to the learned Court below forthwith. There will be no order as to costs.