BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application under Section 115 of the code of Civil Procedure is at the instance of defendants in a suit for declaration and injunction and is directed against order dated December 1, 1998 passed by the learned District judge. Howrah in Misc. Appeal No 145 of 1998 thereby allowing an application, for mandatory injunction filed by the opposite party in the said Misc. Appeal and consequently allowing the Misc. Appeal itself. ( 2 ) THE opposite party herein brought against the petitioners in the Court of Civil judge, Junior Division, 4th Court, Howrah a suit being Title Suit No. 119 of 1998 for declaration that he was a tenant in respect of the disputed property and the present petitioners had no right to create any disturbance in the peaceful possession and enjoyment oi the opposite party in the suit property and for per manent injunction restraining the petitioners, their men and agent from creating any disturbance in enjoyment or running of the business in the suit property and from dispossessing the opposite party other than by due course of law. ( 3 ) IMMEDIATELY after the filing of the afore said suit, the opposite party filed an application for temporary injunction there by paying an order of temporary injunction in terms of the aforesaid prayer. ( 4 ) THE learned Trial Judge by Order No. 3 dated June 12, 1998 issued notice to show cause upon the petitioners as to why the prayer of the opposite party should not be granted. However, the learned Trial Judge refused to grant any ad interim order of injunction, ( 5 ) BEING dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated June 12, 1998 the opposite party preferred a first Misc. Appeal being Misc. Appeal No 145 of 1998 before the learned District Judge, howrah and immediately after the admission of the said appeal filed a fresh application for temporary injunction in terms of the prayer made in the learned Trial Court. The learned District Judge by order dated June 19, 1998 issued notice upon the present petitioners and also granted an ex-parte ad-interim order by way of maintenance of status quo as on that date In respect of the property in question till July 17. 1998. ( 6 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, on the allegation that on June 20, 1998 at about 7. The learned District Judge by order dated June 19, 1998 issued notice upon the present petitioners and also granted an ex-parte ad-interim order by way of maintenance of status quo as on that date In respect of the property in question till July 17. 1998. ( 6 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, on the allegation that on June 20, 1998 at about 7. 15 a. m. the present petitioners had taken forcible possession of the suit property in violation of the interim order of status quo granted on the previous day, the opposite party filed an application for mandatory injunction directing restoration of possession of the suit property. ( 7 ) THE said application was opposed by the present petitioners by filing written objection thereby disputing the right claimed by the opposite party in the suit and also disputing possession of the opposite party in the suit perry at the time of passing of the order of cauis quo. ( 8 ) IT will not be out of place to mention here that before approaching the learned District Judge with a prayer of mandatory injunction, the opposite party moved this Court in a writ jurisdiction which ultimately went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India but the apex Court by order dated October 12, 1998 disposed of the said application by directing that the police will investigate the complaint of the opposite party uninfluenced by any observation made by High Court in the order dated july 14, 1998 in M. A. T. No. 2178 of 1998 and so also the learned District Judge would decide the application that may be filed by the opposite party on its own merit and without being influenced by the observation made by the High Court in the aforesaid order dated july 14, 1998. ( 9 ) THE learned District Judge on consideration of the materials on record by Order no. 21 dated December 1, 1998 allowed the application filed by the opposite party for mandatory injunction thereby directing the present petitioners to restore possession of the suit property forthwith. By the said order, the learned District Judge also disposed of the main misc. Appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 145 of 1998 filed by the opposite party against order of refusal of ad interim injunction. ( 10 ) BEING dissatisfied, the defendants have come up in revision. ( 11 ) MR. By the said order, the learned District Judge also disposed of the main misc. Appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 145 of 1998 filed by the opposite party against order of refusal of ad interim injunction. ( 10 ) BEING dissatisfied, the defendants have come up in revision. ( 11 ) MR. Dasgupta, the learned Counsel appearing in support of this application made two-fold submissions before this Court. ( 12 ) THE first point advanced by Mr. Dasgupta is that finding of the learned District judge is a perverse finding of fact and no prudent man will come at such finding from the available materials on record. ( 13 ) THE other point taken by Mr. Dasgupta is that while allowing the application of the opposite party for mandatory injunction the learned District Judge took into consideration various documents filed by the opposite party by a "firisti" although those documents were not part of affidavit. According to Mr. Dasgupta even the copies of those documents were not served upon the learned advocate for the petitioner in the Court of appeal below. Therefore, Mr. Dasgupta contends that the learned District Judge acted illegally and with material irregularity in taking into consideration those documents although some of those were not made part of affidavit filed by the opposite party. ( 14 ) MR. Chatterjee, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party has on the other hand supported the order passed by the learned District Judge and has contended that the finding of fact arrived at by the learned District Judge is essentially a finding of fact based on materials on record. Mr. Chatterjee remainds me of the limited scope of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and relies upon number of decisions of the apex Court explaining the limited scope of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 15 ) AS regards the other contention of the petitioners, Mr. Mr. Chatterjee remainds me of the limited scope of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and relies upon number of decisions of the apex Court explaining the limited scope of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 15 ) AS regards the other contention of the petitioners, Mr. Chatterjee submits that although the copies of those documents were not served upon the learned Advocate for the petitioners in the Court of Appeal below but a copy of the "firisti" was very much served upon the learned advocate for the petitioners and according to the practice prevailing in the howrah District Court if some documents are failed by "firisti" after giving a copy of the "firisti", the learned Advocate for the other side can very well take inspection of those documents and make appropriate submission. At any rate, Mr. Chatterjee contends that the copy of those documents have already been served upon the learned Advocate for the petitioners in this Court and as such I can take into consideration those documents while scrutinising the findings of the learned District Judge. ( 16 ) THERE is no dispute with the proposition of the law that if a party to a proceeding in dispossessed by the other party in violation of an interim order during pendency of the proceeding, a Court has power to restore to the person dispossessed the suit property by passing appropriate order of mandatory injunction. But the essential condition precedent of passing such order of mandatory injunction is that the party applying for mandatory injunction must be either admittedly in possession of the property at the time of passing of the order of status quo or must be proved to be in possession on the date of passing of interim order. In other words, before passing an order of mandatory injunction the Court must record its specific finding that during the pendency of the proceeding, the applicant has been dispossessed in violation of the subsisting interim order. ( 17 ) IN the instant case, the learned District Judge after considering the materials did not arrive at a specific finding that the opposite party was in possession of the suit property on June 19, 1998 viz. the date of passing if the order of status quo. ( 17 ) IN the instant case, the learned District Judge after considering the materials did not arrive at a specific finding that the opposite party was in possession of the suit property on June 19, 1998 viz. the date of passing if the order of status quo. In this connection it will be pertinent to quote the last paragraph of the order passed by the learned District Judge:"considering the instant case in the perspective of the circumstances discussed above I am prima facie satisfied that the petitioner advanced a sum of rs. 2 lakhs to the respondent No. 1 at his request for making a settlement with shiv Nand Misra for getting delivery of the two rooms occupied by him in the suit premises and acceded to induct the petitioner as a tenant in the suit property. It also prima facie appears to me that the petitioner occupied the suit property and undertake work for renovation of the suit property and promotion of his business for letting out the second floor rooms to the members of the public for their use as a Banquet hall on different occasions and he was dispossessed from the suit property without any due process of law. This is in my opinion as exceptional case where the Court should invoke its power under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, in order to restore the petitioner to the possession of the suit property granting a mandatory injunction in his favour following the principle of law settled by the decision reported in AIR 1985 Cal 248 as referred to hereinbefore. " ( 18 ) THEREFORE, the learned District Judge while passing an order of mandatory injunction merely recorded his prima facie finding as regards the tenancy right of the opposite party in the suit property and his dispossession therefrom. In my opinion, although a prohibitory injunction can be granted on the basis of existence of a prima facie if other two requisite conditions viz. balance of convenience and inconvenience and irreparable loss and injury of the applicant are satisfied, a prayer for mandatory injunction for restoration of possession for violation of an interim order of status quo however cannot granted unless a Court specifically comes 10 a finding that the applicant was in possession on the date of passing of order of status quo. balance of convenience and inconvenience and irreparable loss and injury of the applicant are satisfied, a prayer for mandatory injunction for restoration of possession for violation of an interim order of status quo however cannot granted unless a Court specifically comes 10 a finding that the applicant was in possession on the date of passing of order of status quo. ( 19 ) THEREFORE, the learned District Judge exercised jurisdiction not vested in him by law, by passing of an order of restoration in the absence of any specific finding that the applicant was in possession at the time of passing of order of status quo. Such finding alone gives jurisdiction to the learned District Judge to pass an order of restoration. Therefore, the order passed by the learned District Judge cannot be supported. ( 20 ) 1 also find substance in the contention of Mr. Dasgupta that the learned District judge ought not to have taken into consideration documents which were not made part of affidavit. In this case, the parties used affidavits and relied upon various documents. In my opinion, unless the parties take responsibility of those documents by supporting affidavit or by oath, a Court should not take into consideration those documents. Over and above, the copies of those documents were not served upon the learned Advocate for petitioners in the Court of appeal below. Under the aforesaid circumstances I do not find substance in the contention of Mr. Chatterjee that the learned Advocate for the petitioners in the court of appeal below by taking inspection of those documents could make appropriate submissions. ( 21 ) I am also not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Chatterjee that copies of those documents having been served upon the learned Advocates for the petitioners in this court, I should reappreciate those documents and test the finding arrived at by the learned district Judge. ( 22 ) THIS Court being a Revisional Court under Section 115 of the Code, of Civil Procedure and having found that the essential finding required for allowing the application in question being absent, in my opinion, should set aside the order impugned. ( 22 ) THIS Court being a Revisional Court under Section 115 of the Code, of Civil Procedure and having found that the essential finding required for allowing the application in question being absent, in my opinion, should set aside the order impugned. In the circumstances, i direct the learned District Judge to re-hear the application for mandatory injunction afresh after taking into consideration the materials on record and also the documents produced by the parties if those are supported by affidavit or tendered in evidence and proved according to law. In the special facts and circumstances of the instant case, in my opinion, such disputed questions of fact should not be adjudicated simply on the basis of affidavit and as such 1 direct the learned District Judge to allow the parties to lead evidence on the question whether the opposite party was in possession of the suit property at the time of passing of the order of status quo on June 19, 1998 and to decide the question on the basis of evidence. ( 23 ) WITH the above observation, I allow this application, set aside the order impugned and direct the learned District Judge to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the direction given in this order. I make it clear that 1 have not entered into the merit of the application filed by the opposite party and only in view of absence of any specific finding as regards the alleged possession of the opposite party on the date of passing of the order of status quo and for the material irregularity on the part of the learned District Judge in taking into account some documents not supported by any affidavit, I set aside the order impugned. The petitioners are directed not to transfer or encumber the suif property in any way till the adjudication of the dispute by the learned District Judge. ( 24 ) IN the facts and circumstances there will be however no order as to costs. After this order is passed Mr. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the opposite party prays for stay of operation of the order which is opposed by Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the petitioners. ( 24 ) IN the facts and circumstances there will be however no order as to costs. After this order is passed Mr. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the opposite party prays for stay of operation of the order which is opposed by Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the petitioners. After hearing the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, i stay all further proceedings of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 145 of 1998 pending before the learned District judge, Howrah for a period of four weeks from date. Let the records be sent down immediately. If xerox certified copy of the order is applied for, the office will supply the same within a week from the date of application. Application allowed.