This revision is directed against the order dated 22.6.95 passed by Shri HM Dkhar, Judge, District Council Court, Khasi Hills, Shillong in Misc Civil Appeal No.5 of 1995 allowing the appeal setting aside the order dated 30.5.95 passed by the trial Court in Misc Case No.8 of 1994. 2. The facts for the purpose of disposal of this civil revision may be stated as follows. The opposite party represented by U. Bakingstar Syiemiong, Syiem of Langrin Syiemshi, Phalandilon, Langrin Syiemship brought a suit (Title Suit No.3 of 1990) in the Subordinate District Council Court, Shillong for declaration of right, title and interest over the lands known as Law Langamtilla and Pyndengtanglieh and also for permanent injunction. In the said suit an application was also filed for issue of mandatory injunction. Plaintiff also filed an application for injunction against the defendant/opposite party in the said suit praying for injunction restraining the opposite party/defendant from collecting lime stones, quarry operation of coal mines and also to do any act in the suit land. The trial Court refused to grant any injunction. Being dissatisfied the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. However, the appellate Court also refused to grant any injunction on the ground that there was no threat or apprehension of their being dispossessed. Thereafter the suit commenced. Meanwhile the opposite party defendant approached this Court by filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution (Civil Rule No.496 of 1995). An interim order was passed by this Court. The opposite party who was the respondent in the Civil Rule filed an application for cancellation or modification of the interim order. However, the learned Single Judge refused to modify or cancel the order. An appeal was filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge (Writ Appeal No. 158 of 1995). The appellate Bench took up the entire matter and disposed of the said appeal with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the title suit within a period of three months. In the meantime the petitioner defendant filed an application praying for injunction restraining the plaintiff and their agents, their workmen from collecting limestone, quarry operation of the coal mines etc pending disposal of the suit. In the meantime the petitioner defendant filed an application praying for injunction restraining the plaintiff and their agents, their workmen from collecting limestone, quarry operation of the coal mines etc pending disposal of the suit. However, the trial Court after hearing the parties passed the following order: "In the present state of circumstances and the standing orders of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court stipulating the time frame for disposing the instant injunction petition, I am unable to come to a conclusion whether the three parametres laid down in Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC are available to the parties because of the fact that the original documents have not been exhibited and proved and no oral testimony has not yet been recorded. However for the larger interest of justice I am of the opinion that an order in the form of injunction be issued directing the parties to maintain a status quo and further direct the petitioner/defendants and the opposite parties/plaintiff be restrained to enter into the suit land nor lease out any portion of the suit land and further direct their workmen agents, employees who are working under them from illegally collecting limestone, quarry, leasing portion of the coal mines and do any other act that will destroy or jeopardise the suit land which I hereby do." Against that an appeal was filed the before Judge, District Council Court (Misc Appeal No.5 of 1995). The said appeal was heard by the.learned Judge, District Council Court who after hearing the parties allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 30.5.95 passed by the trial Court in Misc Case No.8 of 1994. Hence the present revision. 3. I heard both sides. 4. Mr. AM Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the facts and circumstances of the case the Courts below ought to have granted injunction. But the learned Judge failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by refusing to grant injunction. Mr. Mazumdar further submitted that the petitioner as defendant filed a petition claiming for injunction restraining the plaintiff opposite party from collecting limestone, quarry operation of coal mines pending disposal of the suit. The trial Court directed both sides to maintain status-quo. In appeal the order of status-quo was set aside. Mr. Mazumdar further submitted that the petitioner as defendant filed a petition claiming for injunction restraining the plaintiff opposite party from collecting limestone, quarry operation of coal mines pending disposal of the suit. The trial Court directed both sides to maintain status-quo. In appeal the order of status-quo was set aside. But after setting aside, the appellate Court did not consider the application whether the petitioner was entitled to get an order of injunction restraining the plaintiff/opposite party from collecting limestone, quarry operation of coal mines etc. Therefore, according to Mr. Mazumdar the appellate Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested on him. Mr. Mazumdar further submitted that the petitioner defendant having claimed the property definitely has prima facie case to go into the trial and pending disposal of the suit if the plaintiffs are allowed to operate the colieries and limestone it would change the nature and character of the land and as a result the petitioner would suffer loss which might not be compensated by money alone. Besides, the balance of convenience was in favour of granting injunction as prayed for by the petitioner. 5. Mr. DN Chowdhury, learned counsel on the other hand, supported the appellate order and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the injunction as prayed for cannot be granted. Besides, if such injunction is granted that will amount to granting mandatory injunction and the facts and circumstances appearing from the case would not justify granting injunction of mandatory in nature. 6. On the basis of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties it is to be seen whether the appellate order can sustain in law and whether the defendant petitioner is entitled to get any order of injunction. In the suit filed by the plaintiff/opposite party averred that since time immemorial the land in suit was controlled, managed, possessed and enjoyed by the Syiem of Langrin and his Durbar. The Syiem of Langrin and his Durbar issued pattas to numerous persons for occupying plots of land at Langamtilla. No one has ever interferred with the control, management, possession, enjoyment of the land by Syiem of Langrin and his Durbar over the said lands. The Syiem of Langrin and his Durbar issued pattas to numerous persons for occupying plots of land at Langamtilla. No one has ever interferred with the control, management, possession, enjoyment of the land by Syiem of Langrin and his Durbar over the said lands. It has been further averred that for the purpose of running the administration several plots of land of Langamtilla belonging to the Syiemship had been leased out by registered document to several persons for extraction of coal, limestone, etc. The lessees of the Syiemship, since the settlements, have been extracting coal from the lease-hold lands without any interruption from any quarter. In 1981 late Jiban Singh Syiem, the then representative of defendants' Clan and late Doli Syiem, instituted Title Suit No.21 (T) of 1981 in the Court of Assistant to DC, Shillone against the Administrative Officer, Langrin Syiemship and others for a declaration that the land Langam Tilla was the private property of the Syiemlieh and Syiemion Clans of Langrm. Along with the said suit, a petition for injunction being registered as Misc Case No.64 (T) of 1981 was filed. On the issue of jurisdiction raised by the Administrative Officer and others, the Court of the Assistant to DC, Shillong by order dated 14.7.81 in Misc Case No.64 (T) of 1981 returned the plaint and petition, to be presented in the proper forum. After the plaint and petition were returned by the Court, neither late Jibon Sinsh Syiem nor late Doli Smgh Syiem presented the same before any other Court By agreement dated 25.9.87, the defendants entered into an agreement with M/s Anderson Coals one of the lessees of the Syiemship of Langrin, in which the defendants never raised any objection to it. However, on 19.12.88 the defendants made a declaration by deed before the Sub-Registrar at Nongstoin claiming that the lands in suit were their ancestral properties and for this the opposite party plaintiff brought the suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. In the application for injunction the petitioner/defendant claimed the said property, namely Langamtilla and Pyndentanglieh as their own property. They also averred that the plaintiffs claim was baseless. The plaintiffs have even got some lease deeds registered in spite of the fact that the land was registered as ancestral private property and therefore he prayed for an order of injunction. The opposite party plaintiff also filed objection. They also averred that the plaintiffs claim was baseless. The plaintiffs have even got some lease deeds registered in spite of the fact that the land was registered as ancestral private property and therefore he prayed for an order of injunction. The opposite party plaintiff also filed objection. In the objection the opposite party/plaintiff challenged the right of the petitioner to get injunction as prayed for. The injunction matter (Misc Case No.8 of 1994) was disposed of on 30.5.95. The trial Court while disposing of the injunction matter found that three principles relating to the granting of temporary injunction were not available to the parties as the original documents had not been exhibited and proved. Having come to the said conclusion the trial Court passed an order to maintain status-quo to both the parties. 7. In the suit the plaintiff petitioner claimed that the land belonged to Syiem of Langrin Syiemship and his Durbar. The said land was vested with 'Law Langamtilla' and 'Law Pyndengtanglieh', more fully described in the schedule to the plaint and also for a declaration that the lands 'were and had been under the control, management and enjoyment of the Syiem of Langrin and also further declaration that the suit lands were not the ancestral properties of the defendant. The petitioner also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interferring with the management, control and enjoyment of the suit land by the Syiem of Langrin. Whether the suit land actually belongs to Syiem of Langrin and whether the said land is under its control and management are matters to be decided in the suit. At least averments made in the plaint indicate a prima facie case to go into the trial and those averments are to be proved and established in the suit by adducing evidence etc. 8. From the above position I find that there is a prima facie case to go into e trial. If the present position is disturbed then there is likelihood of causing irreparable loss and hardship to the parties and the balance of convenience quires maintenance of the present state of affairs. 9. In view of the above I direct the parties to maintain status quo. If the present position is disturbed then there is likelihood of causing irreparable loss and hardship to the parties and the balance of convenience quires maintenance of the present state of affairs. 9. In view of the above I direct the parties to maintain status quo. However, I make it clear that the lessees who are operating the lease-hold lands and extracting coal, limestone etc prior to the institution of the suit shall continue to do so even at the time when order of status quo is to be maintained. I am told that the trial Court is taking up the suit for disposal. I hope that the trial Court will complete the trial as early as possible. Till then the status quo as aforesaid shall be maintained. 10. With this direction this revision petition is disposed of.