Honble JAIN, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. (2). The dispute between the parties is with regard to a plot which according to the plaintiffs-non-petitioners was allotted by Gram Panchayat, Pundla on 24.1.1985 measuring 94 x 59 x 6 inches. The plaintiffs averred that they have been in possession of the above plot even since the patta was granted. They have also constructed four shops. When they started repair of the shops, the petitioner or its employees caused obstruction and threaten to demolish the above shops. The plaintiff, therefore, filed a suit for permanent injunction. The defendant-petitioner resisted the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs are rank trace-passers and they have constructed the above shops in a blatant violation of law. They emphatically denied the long possession claimed by the plaintiffs. It was further alleged that the petitioner was proceeding against the plaintiffs in accordance with law. The plaintiffs also filed an application u/O. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 CPC before the trial Court which was disposed of on 22.12.1995 and the petitioner was restrained by a temporary injunction not to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs and their construction activities. At the same time, he also passed an order that the parties shall maintain status quo. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate Court on 22.5.1996. (3). There is a serious dispute between the parties. The plaintiffs are claiming old possession whereas the petitioner- defendant is alleging that by making tres-pass, the plaintiffs constructed the above shops, thus, in very short period. Prima facie it does not appeal feasible that the plaintiffs could construct the above shops by causing surprise to the defendant. Building activities definitely take time and if the plaintiffs were constructing the same after making trespass, the employees or officials of the petitioner ought to have taken appropriate action. Be that as it may, since the shops are admittedly standing over the plot, it was an appropriate order passed by the trial Court to maintain status quo but while passing the operative order some inconsistency has been caused. He has issued temporary injunction restraining the petitioner and his employees from causing any obstruction in the building activities of the plaintiffs on the one hand but also passed an order that the status quo be maintained. He has issued temporary injunction restraining the petitioner and his employees from causing any obstruction in the building activities of the plaintiffs on the one hand but also passed an order that the status quo be maintained. In the facts and circumstances, I am of opinion that the status quo as it exists today be maintained. That part of the order of the trial Court is hereby set aside. Since only as minor interference has been made to make operative order of the trial Court correct and coherent, I do not think and notice to be issued to the opposite party is necessary. With this modification, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.