Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This civil revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.4.91 passed in Misc. Appeal no.15/90 affirming the order of injunctio. . passed by the 1st Subordinate Judge, Bagha in title suit no.36/89. 3. It appears that the suit was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party for declaring the sale deeds by her in favour of petitioners-defendants as void. 4. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of tie Code of Civil Procedure was filed on behalf of the plaintiff and the learned Subordinate Judge after issuing notice to the defendants and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case restrained the defendants from going over the suit lands. The defendants were further restrained from dispossessing or ousting the plaintiff from the suit house till the disposal of the suit. 5. The defendants preferred an appeal against the order of injunction which was heard by 1st Addl. District Judge, Bettiah and the same was dismissed affirming the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge. 6. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioners that no prima facie case has been found for granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff and the learned Subordinate judge merely on the report of the Pleader commissioner has passed order of restrainment against the petitioners. I have examined the order impugned. From the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge restraining the petitioners from going over the suit land and also from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit house, it appears that there is no finding recorded by it that no title had passed to the petitioners by the sale deeds executed by opposite party. I find that merely on the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the plaintiff was found in the house and the petitioners have been restrained from going over the other agricultural lands. 7. Since there is no finding that the title has passed to the petitioners by virtue of the sale deeds executed by the opposite party, in my opinion, the question for injunction was not maintainable. Since there is no finding with regard to passing of the title to the petitioners, in my opinion, no prima facie case has been shown by the plaintiff for grant of injunction. 8. Since there is no finding with regard to passing of the title to the petitioners, in my opinion, no prima facie case has been shown by the plaintiff for grant of injunction. 8. For the reasons aforementioned, it must be held that the orders passed by the learned courts below are wholly without jurisdiction and not sustainable in law. 9. In the result, this application is allowed. Orders impugned are set aside. There shall be no order as to cost.