JUDGMENT : P.C. Misra, J. - This revision is directed against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Parlakhemundi in Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 1984 confirming the order of the trial court by which the prayer for injunction was rejected. 2. The present Petitioners filed Title Suit No. 38 of 1979 in the Court of Munsif, Parlakhemundi for permanent injunction to restrain the opposite parties-Defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession in respect of the suit land measuring 10 acres 364 decimals situated at Kumalsing till the final disposal of R.M.C. Case No. 65 of 1978 which was one under Regulation II of 1956. The Plaintiffs are the purchasers of the suit- properties which was challenged in the aforesaid R.M.C. Case No. 65 of 1978 under Regulation II, 1956. An application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure. was filed in the trial court in which a temporary injunction was prayed for to restrain the present opposite parties from interfering with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs till the disposal of the suit or R.M.C. Case No. 65 of 1978 whichever was earlier. The Special Officer disposed of the R.M.C. Case No. 65 of 1978 on 2-1-1984 against which an appeal was filed by the present Petitioners. In the order of injunction passed by the Munsif it was stated that the order shall stand automatically vacated on the very day on which judgment was to be delivered in R.M.C. Case No. 65 of 1978. Therefore, on disposal of the R.M.C. Case No. 65 of 1978 on 2-1-1984, the order of injunction stood automatically vacated. A further application was filed by the Plaintiffs-Petitioners that they have already filed an appeal against the order passed in R.M.C. Case No. 65 of 1978 and it is appropriate that the fresh order of injunction should be issued in the same terms, as it was done previously, till the disposal of the appeal pending before the A.D.M., Ganjam. The learned Munsif after consideration of the case and after hearing the parties rejected the said petition which was carried up to the Subordinate Judge, Parlakhemundi in Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 1984. The Subordinate Judge by the impugned judgment refused to interfere with the order of the learned Munsif the legality of which is the subject matter of this revision. 3. Appeal No. 2 of 1984. The Subordinate Judge by the impugned judgment refused to interfere with the order of the learned Munsif the legality of which is the subject matter of this revision. 3. Admittedly there was an order of temporary injunction passed in the suit restraining the Defendants-opposite parties from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiffs-Petitioners till the disposal of R.M.C. Case No. 65 of 1978. The said order became final between the parties. It has been argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties that there was no mention in the original application praying for an order of injunction till the final disposal of the proceeding under Regulation II of 1956, the specific prayer being that the opposite parties to be restrained till the disposal of R.M.C. Case No. 65 of 1978. It has been therefore argued that the Court would not be justified in granting a relief not prayed for by the Plaintiffs-Petitioners. It is conceded by Mr. Panda appearing for the Petitioners that as a matter of fact, injunction was prayed for till the disposal of the suit or the proceeding under the Regulation whichever is earlier and there was obviously no prayer for injunction to continue thereafter till the final disposal of the case including the court of appeal. He, however, submits that the appeal against the order of the Special Officer being a statutory appeal provided under the Regulation, it must be taken to be a continuation of the original proceeding. He further submits that what really meant was to have the injunction against the opposite parties till the final disposal of the proceeding under the Regulation and not disposal of the proceeding by the Special Officer. The objection taken by Mr. Patnaik, advocate for the opposite parties, appears to me to be too technical and opposed to the spirit of the order of injunction previously passed by the Court. His further objection was that in the event the injunction is refused and the Plaintiffs Petitioners are dispossessed from the suit-lands the same cannot be termed as an irreparable loss and for that reason the injunction as prayed for should be refused. His further objection was that in the event the injunction is refused and the Plaintiffs Petitioners are dispossessed from the suit-lands the same cannot be termed as an irreparable loss and for that reason the injunction as prayed for should be refused. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the dispossession of the Plaintiffs, who are otherwise entitled to be in possession but for the result of the proceeding under Regulation II and who are admittedly in present possession by itself would amount to "irreparable loss" which cannot be compensated in terms of money. In the circumstances, I consider it appropriate that the Defendants-opposite parties should be restrained not to interfere with possession of the Plaintiffs-Petitioners until disposal of the appeal pending before the A.D.M. Ganjam (Regulation Appeal No. 1/84). Mr. Patnaik has brought to my notice that the Regulation Appeal No. 1 of 1984 has been fixed to be heard on 9th of May, 1986 and the hearing of the said appeal should not be deferred. The prayer appears to be quite reasonable. The A.D.M., Ganjam before whom the aforesaid appeal (Regulation Appeal No. 1 of 1984) is now pending, should dispose of the same expeditiously. 4. In the result the judgmen of the trial court is set aside and the revision is allowed with the effect that the Defendants-opposite parties are restrained not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs-Petitioners till the disposal of Regulation Appeal No. 1 of 1984. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the A.D.M., Ganjam forthwith, for necessary action. Final Result : Allowed