JUDGMENT Aftab Alam, J. This appeal arises out from an order dated 16.3.1990 passed by Subordinate Judge III, Biharshariff in T. S. No. 99 of 1989/29 of 1989 refusing to grant injunction as prayed by the plaintiffs-appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The appellants had asked for an injunction restraining the defendants from taking possession on interfering with the possession of the plaintiff-appellants over the suit property as also from changing its physical features. 2. It is not in dispute that the said property originally belonged to one Harihar Nath who was a Moktar. Later, one Babu Kameshwar Prasad, Mokhtar, who at that time was the Secretary of the Mokhtar Association, purchased it from the four sons of Harihar Nath under different sale deeds executed on different dates. According to the plaintiffs, a building was constructed on the land in which the then S.D.O. Biharshriff also contributed liberally. It is also stated by the plaintiffs that the legal practitioners of the Civil Court, other than Mokhtar also used to sit in that building. It is, however, undeniable that the suit property and the building constructed thereon belonged to the Mokhtar Association. 3. According to the plaintiffs' case, after the enactment of the Advocates Act, all distinctions between the different categories of legal practitioners disappeared and all the Mokhtars, Pleaders and Vakils became members of the Bihar State Bar Council. The plaintiffs claim that after the coming into force of the Advocates Act the Mokhtar Association must be deemed to have ceased to exist and as such the Mokhtar Association got merged with the Advocates Association with all its assets and properties including the suit property. 4. Having heard Mr. Asghar Hussain, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Hare Krishna, I find that the case of the plaintiffs is wholly unsustainable. Mr. Asgar Hussain very fairly admitted that the Mokhtar Association was a registered body and its affairs were managed by a Committee of office bearers. Mr. Hussain was not in a position to deny that the said office bearers are still managing the affairs of the Association. 5. I am unable to appreciate that as a consequence of the Advocate Act coming into force, a registered body like the Mokhtar Association got automatically merged with and its properties stood transferred to the Advocates Association. 6. Mr. Hussain was not in a position to deny that the said office bearers are still managing the affairs of the Association. 5. I am unable to appreciate that as a consequence of the Advocate Act coming into force, a registered body like the Mokhtar Association got automatically merged with and its properties stood transferred to the Advocates Association. 6. I find that the learned trial court has held, and in my opinion rightly, that the plaintiffs have no prima facie case and on that score alone the plaintiffs-appellants are not entitled to any interim injunction. 7. I thus see no infirmity in the order coming under appeal and I find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed. 8. It may, however, be noted that at the time of admission the following interim directions were issued :- "Till further orders the respondents are restrained from alienating any portion of the land in question. They are also restrained from altering the physical features of the structure standing thereon". Mr. Hare Krishna Kumar has no objection if the aforesaid condition remains operative till the pendency of the suit. Therefore, the suit will proceed with the aforesaid order of restrain on the defendants'. Appeal disposed with observation.