JUDGMENT 1. - The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 herein- Naurang Lal had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction which was contested by the defendant-petitioners. The trial Court dismissed the application for injunction against which an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. The first appellate Court vide order dated 28.5.1997 was pleased to hold that the plaintiff-respondent had been able to prove prima facie title in their favour on the suit property as also possession and balance of convenience in his favour and, therefore, was pleased to hold that status quo on the suit property be maintained and the defendant-petitioners have further been specifically directed not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff-respondent on the suit property. 2. Since the defendant-petitioners were held to be a rank trespasser on the suit property they were also restrained from executing any sale-deed in favour of a third party to avoid further complication. Thus the judgment and order of the trial Court was set aside. 3. The defendant-petitioners feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid orders of the Courts below, have preferred this revision petition, in which I find no merit for even assuming that the defendant-petitioners could prove any semblance of title to the suit property which has not been found to be correct by the Courts below, they have failed to prove their possession. In that view of the matter, if the defendant-petitioners have been restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-respondent on the suit property, the impugned order cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or miscarriage of justice. Hence this revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself.Revision Petition dismissed. *******