JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision against the order of learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated 4-6-1994 by which he in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 46/94 set aside the order passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 2, Jodhpur. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the record. 3. A civil suit was filed by Jitendra Kumar and Smt. Indu Devi petitioners for declaration, possession and mesne profits in relation to a house situated in village Dhundhara. The averments in the plaint are that Smt. Gopi Bai in order to fulfil the last desire of her deceased husband adopted plaintiff petitioner Jitendra Kumar on 2-2-1987 in village Dhundhara in accordance with the customary Hindu Law. An adoption deed was also registered on 3-2-1987. The property which belonged to Mangilal on his death was succeeded by Smt. Gopi Bai who was residing at Ahmedabad but coming to Dhundhara and Pokran very often in order to look after it. Various properties are described in para No. 7 of the plaint and property about which the suit was filed is situated at village Dhundhara. Smt. Gopi Bai executed a Will on 2-2-1987 which was registered according to which property situated in Dhundhara was given to plaintiff Jitendra Kumar. But later on she changed her Will and the last Will dated 26-12-1988 was executed according to which both the plaintiffs had half share each in the property situated in village Dhundhara. She died on 29-9-1988 at Ahmedabad. Both the plaintiffs were therefore owners of the property situated in village Dhundhara. 4. It is further averred that defendant respondent Chiranji Lal represented himself to be the adopted son of deceased Mangi Lal which was vehemently opposed by Mangi Lal himself during his life time. The defendant respondent was in a beneficial position as he was residing at village Dhundhara. He filed a civil suit for partition of the property situated in village Dhundhara in which Gopi Bai was a party who denied the averments and the alleged adoption of the defendant respondent by Mangi Lai. She asserted in the written statement that she had adopted Jitendra Kumar. Ultimately the suit was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur on 6-10-1990. She asserted in the written statement that she had adopted Jitendra Kumar. Ultimately the suit was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur on 6-10-1990. When Smt. Gopi Bai died at Ahmedabad on 29-9-1989, plaintiffs performed the last rites there and when they came back on 17-10-1989 they came to know on 19-10-1989 that the defendant had illegally occupied the property on 7-10-1989 by breaking open its lock. Report was lodged at police station Luni on which a case under Sections 456, 448, IPC was registered but the police submitted report that the matter was of civil nature and hence submitted final report. A protest application was filed. It may be stated that the police in relation to FIR No. 84 under Sections 456 and 448, IPC had taken possession of the property and sealed it. In the suit it has been prayed that it may be declared that the plaintiffs were the owners of the property in view of Will dated 26-12-1988 and were entitled to possession of the house and all other benefits including mesne profits. 5. The defendant averred in written statement that he was adopted by Mangi Lal in 1965 according to Hindu Customary rites. His marriage was arranged by Mangi Lal and the invitation card printed on the occasion showed the name of Mangi Lal as father of the defendant. Mangi Lal had given instructions to look after the property situated in village Dhundhara. He was depositing the water and electricity charges in relation to that property situated at Dhundhara. Adoption of plaintiff Jitendra Kumar by Smt. Gopi Bai was denied but in the alternative it was pleaded that adoption was illegal as the defendant was already an adopted son of Mangi Lal and Smt. Gopi Bai had no power or authority to adopt plaintiff Jitendra Kumar in such circumstances. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 6. An application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC was filed by Chiranji Lal for temporary injunction praying that the plaintiffs be bound down not to interfere the peaceful use of the suit property and that the Station House Officer of police station Luni be directed to hand over the key of the house to the defendant from whose possession the house was taken by police. This application was dismissed by Additional Civil Judge (J. D.) No. 2, Jodhpur on 7-2-1994 but the learned Additional District Judge in appeal set aside the order and granted injunction and also ordered that the key lying with the police be handed over to plaintiffs. 7. In this revision a stay petition was also moved number of which is 444/94. This Court stayed operation of the order dated 4-6-1994 but by that time possession of the suit property was already delivered to the defendant. So by order dated 24-8-1994 status quo was ordered to be maintained. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the mandatory injunction in the form it has been granted by appellate Court could not have been granted. He submitted that status quo which was at the time of filing of the suit should not have been changed. He also submitted that the jurisdiction of the appellate Court is very limited and in view of Vimla Devi v. Jang Bahadur, AIR 1977 Rajasthan 196 , the appellate Court should not have interfered in the discretionary order of learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) as the order of learned Additional Civil Judge (J. D.) was not perverse. He submitted that such a relief which has been granted in this case was an exceptional one and should not have been granted in view of the fact that the Station House Officer who was ordered to hand over the key of the house was not a party in the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the decision of learned Additional Civil Judge (J. D.) could not have been reversed by learned Addi tional District Judge unless he gave a finding that the judgment was absurd. The case was that the defendant was in possession of the property from whom possession was taken by police, therefore, the order of learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) was such which should have been set aside even according to the principles of Smt. Vimla Devi v. Jang Bahadur's case (supra). 9. On the other hand learned, counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and has supported the order of learned Additional District Judge. 9. On the other hand learned, counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and has supported the order of learned Additional District Judge. He first submitted that since the suit is quite old and is still at the initial stage while maintaining the order of the learned District Judge the trial Court may be directed to decide the suit within a particular period but the learned counsel for the petitioners did not agree to this and insisted that the petition be decided on merits. 10. So far as police officer being a party in the suit is concerned, it may be stated that he was not a necessary party as the plaintiffs themselves had filed the first information report and the police after investigation submitted final report saying that the matter was civil one. But since the possession of the house was taken over by police, the key was lying with the Station House Officer concerned. If the plaintiffs wanted to say that action of the Station House Officer was illegal, they could make the State Government a party in the suit by praying that the possession of the house may be given to them by the concerned police officer but this was not done by the plaintiffs themselves, therefore, they are not entitled to raise such an objection now saying that the Station House Officer is not a party in the suit, therefore, he could not have been ordered to hand over the key to the defendant by learned Additional District Judge. Such an injunction order could be passed in the facts and circumstances of this case as the Court had ample jurisdiction under Section 151, C.P.C. for restoration of possession when a party was forcibly dispossessed. For this proposition, 1998 (4) Cur CC 559, Madh Pra, Kailash Chand Gupta v. Rukam Singh Yadav , can be relied upon. This Court in Nazir Ahmed v. Ashfaq Ali, (1989) 2 Rajasthan LR 113 , has held that in exceptional cases Court can issue mandatory injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC. For this proposition, 1998 (4) Cur CC 559, Madh Pra, Kailash Chand Gupta v. Rukam Singh Yadav , can be relied upon. This Court in Nazir Ahmed v. Ashfaq Ali, (1989) 2 Rajasthan LR 113 , has held that in exceptional cases Court can issue mandatory injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC. Besides it is the Court which has to decide in such cases as to what is in the interest of justice and I am of the view that the learned appellate Judge while passing the impugned order did not commit any jurisdictional error as the order has been passed in the interest of justice. The plaintiffs have filed' suit for possession and their specific case is that the defendant had taken possession of the house on 7-10-1989. So the case of the plaintiffs themselves was that the house on the date of the suit was in possession of the defendant though the police had legally/illegally seized it on the basis of the first information report. Admittedly on the date of the suit the plaintiffs were not in possession of the house. The case of the defendant is that he was an adopted son of Mangi Lal who was residing at Ahmedabad and has asked him to look after the property situated in village Dhundhara and as such he was looking it after the paying the electricity and water charges as well as was in possession. Therefore, the order of learned Additional District Judge that the plaintiffs should not interfere in possession of the defendant and the order to the Station House Officer to hand over the key was perfectly legal in the circumstances of this case. There is no error of jurisdiction committed by learned Additional District Judge as he could have passed such order as appellate Judge in the interest of justice. This Court in 2000 WLC (Raj) (UC) page 101, The Bank of Rajasthan v. Manish Agarwal , has held that the High Court need not interfere even if order be right or wrong or in accordance with law or not unless Court has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Learned counsel for the petitioners was not able to satisfy as to what illegality has been committed by learned appellate Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioners was not able to satisfy as to what illegality has been committed by learned appellate Judge. His main thrust was that the order of learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) dismissing the application for temporary injunction should not have been interfered with by the appellate Judge as the order was not bad in law. I am of the view that the discretion exercised by the appellate Judge should not be interfered in this revision as he had jurisdiction to pass the order which he passed in the impugned order. 11. Consequently, there is no force in this revision petition and it should be dismissed. Before parting with I will observe that the suit is of the year 1991 and should be expedited. It is at the initial stage and it will be in the fitness of things if the trial Court is directed to decide the suit within a period of one year from today. 12. In the result, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. The learned trial Court is directed that the suit be decided within one year from today. No orders as to costs.Revision dismissed. *******