JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner-plaintiff has come up before this court challenging the appellate order dated 18.5.2000 passed by the learned ADJ No. 1 Sikar in CMA No. 79/98 by which the appeal preferred by the non-petitioner/defendant against the order dated 31.8.98 passed by the learned Civil Judge in Civil Misc. Application No. 77/95 by which the temporary injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff was reversed by the said appellate court. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in short is that the appellate court reversed the order of the trial Court on the limited aspect as to whether the land in question over which the petitioner is claiming his possession falls in Abadi area or it is an agricultural land which could not have been determined without calling any report from any revenue official particularly when the petitioner has been in long continuous possession over the same and it also adduced satisfactory evidence in support of possession. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that the trial Court after considering the Commissioner's report and the affidavits filed by the villagers and the water connection made available to the petitioner over the disputed land had found a prima facie case in petitioner's favour with regard to the possession and it while passing the interim order had observed that the petitioner would not be dispossessed since that would cause irreparable injury to him as balance of convenience was also in his favour. His further case is that it was not open to the appellate court to have disturbed this finding of fact on extraneous consideration not germane to the controversy. 3. Without entering into the merits of the controversy at this stage, since the petitioner has come up against the order of the appellate court by which the interim order passed by the trial Court has been reversed keeping in view the above background in that view, I am of the view that prima facie the appellate court has not committed any illegality muchless any irregularity or jurisdictional error so as to call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. The petitioner would have been better advised if he had requested the appellate court to maintain the order of interim status quo pending the receipt of report from Tehsildar since that would have determined the nature of petitioner's possession over the disputed land and that would have been also satisfied the requirements of law with regard to character and the nature of petitioner's possession. The revision petition is thus not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. However, before parting with this order, I would like to observe that keeping in view the request made by the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner's possession has been long and continuous he can construct house over the disputed land, the appellate court may be directed to safeguards the petitioner's possession pending await of report from Tehsildar. 4. It is accordingly directed that the impugned order of the appellate court dated 18.5.2000 shall stand modified to the extent that pending the receipt of report from the Tehsildar of the area in question the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question. However, if it is found that the petitioner is not having any lawful right to be in possession of the land and if the report of Tehsildar speaks to the effect that the petitioner does not have any legal right to continue in possession over the same then, the impugned order passed by the appellate court shall come into force at once. 5. With the above observations, the revision petition stands disposed of. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court on 25.9.2000.Revision Disposed of with Above Modification. *******