JUDGMENT 1. - Against the impugned order dated 5-3-1993 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bikaner in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2/93, Amir Hasan (defendant) filed S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 197/93 and, Dr. Hari Kishan Verma and others filed S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 775/93. Petitioner-Amir Hasan is aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate Judge whereby he allowed the appeal filed by Dr. Hari Kishan Verma and others and set aside the order passed by the Munsif, Bikaner dated 6-11-1992 and restrained him from transferring the possession of the disputed land in any manner and handing over the possession of the same to anyone, till decision of the original suit. The parties were also directed to maintain status quo. That last portion of the direction, namely, directing the i parties to maintain status quo is challenged by Dr. Verma and others in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 775/93. 2. I have heard learned counsel Shri B. L. Purohit for petitioner Amir Hasan and learned counsel Shri D. S. Sishodia for petitioner Dr. Hari Kishan Verma. 3. Learned counsel Shri Purohit has cited l a Division Bench judgment of this Court re- I ported in 1984 RLW 573 and vehemently I submitted that the lower appellate court committed an error in allowing the appeal. He I submitted that civil court has no jurisdiction and, the dispute between the parties can only be decided by the Revenue Court. He submitted that the Division Bench judgment of this Court has been simply overlooked by the lower appellate court, which has been relied upon by the trial court. 4. Considering the material on record, I am of the view that the view taken by the lower appellate court is just, legal and proper and is not required to be interfered in revision petition. It goes without saying that whatever observations were made by the lower appellate court which have been confirmed in this revision petition, would not amount to decide the suit finally. It would be open to the parties to lead further material and convince the trial court that the suit is maintainable or not. This issue is decided at an interlocutory stage. 5. In view of this, Civil Revision Petition No. 197/93 fails and is hereby rejected. 6. It would be open to the parties to lead further material and convince the trial court that the suit is maintainable or not. This issue is decided at an interlocutory stage. 5. In view of this, Civil Revision Petition No. 197/93 fails and is hereby rejected. 6. The only grievance made in Civil Revision Petition No. 775/93 is that after allowing the appeal restraining the respondents from transferring/handing over the possession of the disputed land, the lower appellate court ought not to have issued injunction against both the parties for maintaining status quo. 7. I think this order is innocuous and will not hurt anyone and, therefore, the same is not required to be interfered in revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition No. 775/93 also fails and is hereby rejected. 8. After I passed the above order, learned counsel Shri Purohit insisted to deal with his argument made regarding applicability of Sec. 24A of the Rajasthan Minor Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. Mr. Sishodia, learned counsel appearing in other revision petition vehemently objected the submissions made by learned counsel Shri Purohit, on the ground that this was never the argument before the courts below nor this point was taken in the memo of revision petition. 9. Though it was argued initially, I thought it not fit to deal with the same because it hardly matters with the result of the case. It has hardly any relevance on the point in issue to be decided in this revision petition. Therefore, I had not discussed it. However, Shri Purohit who is senior counsel of this Court, has insisted so much, therefore, against the will, have just referred to his contention in this ' order. I may state that it is not necessary that j each and every argument made by the Advocates is to be dealt with and decided in the order. It is up to the Court if the point has any I merit or any relevance, then only it will be dealt I with. It will not be a precedent in other matters.Order accordingly. *******