JUDGMENT 1. - The plaintiff petitioner along with the suit, submitted an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC against the defendant non-petitioner No. 1. The defendant Non-petitioner No. 1 also filed counter application in submitting the reply of the application of the plaintiff petitioner. In the counter application a prayer was made for maintaining status quo. The trial court dispose of both the application vide order dated 27.8.1996. The application submitted by the plaintiff petitioner was dismissed, while on the application submitted by the defendant non-petitioner No. 1 the plaintiff petitioner was restrained from making interference in the property in dispute, and it was further directed that the possession on the disputed land of the plaintiff petitioner should not be continued. 2. The said order was challenged by the plaintiff petitioner in an appeal before the District Judge, Jhunjhunu who vide judgment dated 27.8.96 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the trial court. Both these orders have been assailed in this revision petition. 3. I have heard Mr. Shyamlal Sharma, and Mr. Sanjay Mahala, learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned order. In this case the questions of facts are involved and the same can be adjudicated after recording the evidence of the parties. Both the courts below have arrived at a concurrent finding after appreciating the points pertaining to prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and the temporary injunction order maintaining status quo with regard to suit property is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, but the interim order passed against the plaintiff petitioner not to continue the possession over the property in dispute, cannot be justified, and both the courts below have exceeded jurisdiction in passing the said part of the order. No such order could have been passed while adjudicating the application for issuance of temporary injunction. A person who is in possession of the property cannot be asked to continue or not to jurisdiction in possession during the pendency of the suit. 4. Consequently, I partly allow this revision petition and set aside only that part of the impugned order, which relates to the discontinuation of the possession. I direct the parties to maintain status quo till the decision of the civil suit. 4. Consequently, I partly allow this revision petition and set aside only that part of the impugned order, which relates to the discontinuation of the possession. I direct the parties to maintain status quo till the decision of the civil suit. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case I direct the trial court to decide the civil suit within three months from today and the learned counsel are expected to assist the trial court for completion of the trial within the said period and no unnecessary adjournment shall be.asked for. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 11.12.1996. Costs made easy.Revision Partly Allowed. *******