Honble KOKJE, J.–These two revision petitions arise in the similar set of facts and, therefore, were heard together and are being decided together. (2). In Civil Revision Petition No.124/93 the impugned order of the appellate court remanding the case to the trial court for taking proceedings under Order 1, Rule 8 C.P.C. was under challenge. The facts of that case are that the revision peti- tioner Chhaganlal and another filed a suit against respondent Chhogaram and four others claiming a permanent injunction for removal of Chabutra built by the non-petitioner adjacent to the house of the petitioner-plaintiff. A temporary injunction was also sought in the suit in a mandatory form which was granted by the trial court directing removal of the Chabutra. An appeal against that order was filed in which the learned District Judge decided that the suit itself was not maintainable and if the plaintiffs wanted to continue the suit they will have to follow the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8 C.P.C. The District Judge, therefore, set aside the order of temporary injunction and sent back the file to the trial court with the direction that the trial should proceed only after the plaintiffs follow the procedure prescri- bed under Order 1, Rule 8 C.P.C. Against this order the Civil Revision Petition No. 124/93 has been filed. (3). In Civil Revision Petition No. 125/93 the facts are that 14 residents of village Mohilabas filed a suit against four persons, including the two plaintiffs in the suit from which Civil Revision Petition No. 124/93 arose. In this suit, a permanent injunction against removal of the same chabutra which was the subject matter of the suit from which civil revision Petition No. 124/93 arose, was claimed. The suit from which Civil Revision Petition No. 124/93 arose was filed on 20.5.88 whereas the suit from which Civil Revision Petition No. 125/93 arose was filed on 08.10.90. A temporary injunction was also sought in the suit which was not granted by the trial court. Against that order, an appeal was filed which was disposed of by directing that the application for temporary injunction be decided afresh in the light of order passed in the case from which Civil Revision Petition No. 124/93 arose. (4). I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. Against that order, an appeal was filed which was disposed of by directing that the application for temporary injunction be decided afresh in the light of order passed in the case from which Civil Revision Petition No. 124/93 arose. (4). I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. Civil Revision No. 124/93 deserves to be allowed for the simple reason that the appellate court could not have finally held that Order 1, Rule 8 C.P.C. will apply while deciding an appeal from an injunction matter. It could have held that there was no prima- facie case in favour of grant of injunction but it could not have held that the suit itself was not maintainable. The order passed by the learned District Judge is clearly unjust and improper and vitiated by material irregularity. In para 11 of the order the learned District Judge has passed strictures against the trial court without any rational basis. Aspersions cannot be cast on a learned Judge of the trial court lightly without any material on record. The observation of the learned District Judge that the learned Judge of the trial court was bent upon giving an injunction for some special reasons is totally baseless and has to be deprecated. It shows that the learned District Judge was biased against the Judge of the trial court and his decision had been vitiated by this bias. It is true that the courts cannot lightly pass an order of mandatory temporary injunction but to attribute motive to the Judge in such a manner cannot be appreciated. Moreover, the appellatee court had no jurisdiction to decide finally that the suit itself was not maintainable. It could, at best, have held that prima-facie the suit appeared to be not maintainable for non-compliance of Order 1, Rule 8 C.P.C. (5). The later suit filed for temporary injunction against removal of the Chabutri was clearly a counterblast to the suit filed by Chhaganlal and Motilal earlier. It was clearly an effort to get over the mandatory temporary injunction passed in the earlier suit. The trial court correctly did not grant the temporary injunction in the suit. The appellate courts order for maintenance of status-quo was clearly misplaced. Whatever it had done could be done in the earlier suit and in the appeal arising out of that suit. The trial court correctly did not grant the temporary injunction in the suit. The appellate courts order for maintenance of status-quo was clearly misplaced. Whatever it had done could be done in the earlier suit and in the appeal arising out of that suit. When a suit is brought with the purpose of defeating the mandatory temporary injunction passed in another suit, there cannot be any prima-facie case for granting an injunction in that suit. The trial court had rightly rejected the prayer for temporary injunction. The appellate court wrongly granted an order for maintenance of status-quo. It has clearly acted with material irregural- ity in exercise of its jurisdiction. (6). In the result, both these revision petitions are allowed. The impugned orders in both the cases are set aside. The order of the trial court in Civil Revision Petition No. 124/93 is set aside and the trial court is directed to decide the application for temporary injunction made therein afresh without being influenced by any observations made in the appellate courts order. The impugned order of the appellate court in Civil Revision Petition No. 125/93 is set aside and the order of the trial court rejecting the application for temporary injunction is maintained. The revision petitions are disposed of.