JUDGMENT The plaintiff who filed a suit for injunction is the revision petitioner herein. According to the plaintiff, the first respondent on 20.1.1986 executed an agreement in his favour agreeing to sell a vacant piece of land measuring 30' x 40' and put him in possession thereof, that he has subsequently constructed a room or shed 12' x 12' with a tin roof and started residing there, that the agreement recited that the property originally belonged to first respondent and others and was allotted to first respondent in an oral partition and that the sale deed while executed after the first defendant and his co-owners entered into registered partition deed, and thus the plaintiff could not have filed a suit for specific performance and filed a suit for injunction apprehending danger to his possession at the hands of the defendants. Defendants who appeared in the trial Court admitted that the plaintiff has put a shed but denied the agreement or that the plaintiff is residing therein. The third defendant in his written statement put forward a counter claim under Order 8 Rule 6 (a) C.P.C. seeking a decree for recovery of possession of the site of the shed with mesne profits. Plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. claiming interlocutory injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with his possession over the entire land and the building. The Court granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff in regard to the shed and granted injunction in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff in relation to the remaining part of the land. Plaintiff filed an appeal and the different sets of defendants filed three appeals, the plaintiff being aggrieved by the injunction granted against him and the failure to grant injunction in his favour in regard to the entire land and the defendants being aggrieved by the injunction granted against them in regard to the shed. The appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, allowed the defendants' appeal and vacated the injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff in regard to the shed. The order in the four appeals is now being challenged by a single revision petition. The appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, allowed the defendants' appeal and vacated the injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff in regard to the shed. The order in the four appeals is now being challenged by a single revision petition. I do not think that a single revision petition is maintainable against the orders finally disposing of four miscellaneous appeals under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. The revision petition at best can be treated as a revision against the disposal of one of the appeals; in such a case the orders in the other three appeals would have become final and .the revision petitioner cannot secure any relief. I asked the learned counsel appearing for the respondents (defendants) what their clients propose to do. It is pointed out that the third defendant has already preferred a counter claim seeking recovery of possession. Learned counsel for the first defendant submitted that his client will seek recovery of possession in accordance with law. These submissions are recorded and accordingly the revision petition is disposed of.