JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - Plaintiff has filed this revision. Title Suit No. 402/97 was filed by the petitioner for declaration of title and possession and for injunction in respect of "A" Schedule property. The "A" Schedule property consists of three plots, namely, M.S. Plot No. 852/1436 (Ac. 0.26 dec.) of Khata No. 394; M.S.Plot No. 852 (Ac. 1.39 dec.) and M.S. Plot No. 852/1455 (Ac 0.70 dec.) both of Khata No. 395 in mauza Kharadipal under Jaleswar Tahasil. During the pendency of the suit, an application for injunction was filed. The said application was rejected by the trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No. 34/98 which having been dismissed, the present revision has been filed. 2. During the pendency of the revision, on 5.5.1998, an order has been passed restraining both the parties not to carry on any permanent construction in respect of Plot No. 852/1436 having an area of Ac.0.36 decimals. 3. Though injunction had been sought for in respect of the three plots, from paragraph-8 of the judgment of the appellate Court, it is apparent that the plaintiff-appellant confined the claim relating to temporary injunction in respe'ct of plot No. 852 of Khata No. 395 and Plot No. 852/1436 of Khata No. 394 and from paragraph-9 of the said judgment, it is apparent that the defendant-opposite parties do not have any claim over Plot No. 852. Since the defendant-opposite parties, have no claim in respect of plot No. 852 having an area of Ac. 1.39 decimals, as described in the plaint, no order of injunction is necessary. However, it is needless to point out that possession of the plaintiff in respect of the said plot is to be respected by the defendants. The consideration in the present Civil Revision is thus confined to plot No. 852/1436 with an area of Ac.0.26 decimals in Khata No. 394. 4. On a perusal of the order passed by the appellate Court, it appears that the appellate Court has mainly rejected the appeal on a technical ground as disclosed in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment of the appellate Court. It has been found therein that the appeal and the petition under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 had been filed by Manasi Panigrahi in her personal capacity. 5. It has been found therein that the appeal and the petition under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 had been filed by Manasi Panigrahi in her personal capacity. 5. Coming to the observation of the appellate Court that the injunction petition and the appeal have been filed by the present petitioner in her personal capacity cannot be sustained. It is apparent that the petitioner has described herself everywhere as the Secretary of the institution and suit had been filed on behalf of the institution, so also the injunction petition and the appeal. In the appeal memo itself, the petitioner had described herself as the "Secretary of Managing Committee, Sri Aurobindo Integral Education and Research Centre". A reading of plaint, the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and the memorandum of appeal leaves no room for doubt that the proceedings had been commenced on behalf of the institution. 6. It is, of course, true that in subsequent paragraph of the judgment, the appellate Court has also given some tentative finding disbelieving the possession of the petitioner. However, it is apparent that the discussion of the appellate Court relating to possession appears to be very perfunctory. The counsels for both parties have relied upon several documents which had been filed in the Court below. However, it seems that the appellate Court has not referred to many of the materials produced on either side and on a perfunctory discussion has come to a tentative conclusion disbelieving the possession of the petitioner in respect of a portion of plot No. 852/ 1436. Since the appellate Court has misconceived the scope of the injunction petition and the finding recorded in paragraph-1 5 of the judgment of the appellate Court is based on perfunctory discussion of the materials on record and since both the parties have referred to several documents which were required to be considered, I think interest of justice would be served by setting aside the order of the appellate Court and directing it to reconsider the question. 7. The operation of the order dated 5.5.1998 passed by this Court which had been continued till disposal of the revision shall continue to remain effective unless the appellate Court for reasons to be indicated decides to vary the same in any manner. 7. The operation of the order dated 5.5.1998 passed by this Court which had been continued till disposal of the revision shall continue to remain effective unless the appellate Court for reasons to be indicated decides to vary the same in any manner. It is made clear that no opinion has been expressed relating to merits of the rival contentions and the matter has to be decided afresh by the appellate Court in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations in the impugned order or in any previous order of the appellate Court, or the present order in the Civil Revision, or by the fact that the interim order made by this Court has been directed to continue until further orders by the appellate Court. The parties are directed to appear before the appellate Court on 23rd August. 1999 for receiving further instruction. The documents filed by the parties in this Court may be returned to the respective counsels on proper verification so that the documents can be re-filed before the appellate Court. The Civil Revision is accordingly disposed of. No costs.