JUDGMENT This petition has been moved under Order 39 Rule 2A and section 151 of C.P.C. It is alleged that respondent No.6 is an influential person and the police is under his impression. It is contended that the respondent No.6 is trying to take possession of the disputed land and is trying to harvest the crop with the aid of police. It is further contended that the respondent is not permitting the petitioners to cut the crops and is flouting the order passed by this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 180/94, which was preferred by the petitioners against the order of the Court below. It is relevant to mention that a suit was filed by respondent No.6 Jawaharlal against the petitioners and the other respondents, for the specific performance of the contract and for permanent injunction. An application was also filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C., seeking injunction against the petitioners and the other respondents. The learned trial Court on the documents and the material available on record found that the plaintiff was in possession of the land in dispute, he 'had a prima-facie case and the balance of convenience being in his favour, directed the petitioners and the other respondents not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff-respondent No.6 and not to dispossess him from the property. A further direction was issued that the petitioners and other respondents shall not seek the mutation of their names in the revenue records. This Court while disposing of the misc. appeal only issued a limited direction that- "the parties would maintain status quo as it obtains today". It was further observed that - "It is made clear that none of the parties to the litigation will take possession now under the garb of the order of status quo passed by this Court. " In view of the direction of this Court, it is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioners that respondent No.6 is trying to flout the order of this Court by making efforts to cut the crops from the disputed land. This Court had itself made clear that none of the parties to the litigation will take possession now under the garb of the order. As such, the finding of the Court below about the possession of the plaintiff-respondent No.6 was not disturbed. This Court had itself made clear that none of the parties to the litigation will take possession now under the garb of the order. As such, the finding of the Court below about the possession of the plaintiff-respondent No.6 was not disturbed. It is contended by the petitioners that the order of the learned trial Court merged in the order passed by this Court. I declined to accept the contention. The theory of merger cannot be put into play, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when this Court had issued only a limited direction, without disturbing the finding of the Court below. The authorities cited by the petitioners on the principle of merger are of no avail. The petition is without substance and is, therefore, dismissed. However, the petitioners would 'be at liberty to seek review of the order of this Court, if so advised.