Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 8-1-1998 rejecting prayer of injunction by the appellants. 2. The case of the plaintiffs in the lower Court was that they are raiyats of the suit lands as mentioned in Schedules 1, 2 and 3 of the plaint. The defendants were interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit lands as mentioned in the afores(sic) schedules and were attempted to harvest the crops standing over the schedules of the lands. So, in a petition the defendants were sought to the restrained from dist(sic) the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and from harvesting the crops (sic) thereof. 3. The lower Court after hearing both the parties rejected the prayer of injunction on the grounds, inter alia, that the suit was not maintainable under Sec. 48-E of the B.T. Act because the bataidari right of the defendants had to decide only by the Revenue Courts. The lower Court also rejected the prayer of injunction on the ground that the suit was not maintainable under Section 48-E of the B.T. Act. 4. It has been submitted by the appellants lawyer that since the appellants are in suitivating possession of the suit lands and the defendants are claiming their bataidari right they are free to get their bataidari right settled by the Revenue Courts and the fact whether the plaintiff-appellants are the cultivating tenant of the suit lands and whether the defendants are the bataidars can very well be decided by the Civil Court and there is no bar of jurisdiction in this connection under any provision of the P.T. Act. So, the lower Court was competent to consider the prayer regarding grant of injunction and it should have been disposed of after taking into consideration the principles governing grant or rejection of injunction. The lower Court did not consider the prayer of the plaintiff-appellants on settled principle of law and, hence, the matter may be remanded. 5. The respondents lawyer submitted that so far the prayer regarding injunction upon harvesting of the crops is concerned, that prayer has become infructuous because by now the crops must have been harvested. But, however, so far the other prayer of the plaintiff-appellants to the effect that the defendants be restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-appellants, think that prayer is still relevant. But, however, so far the other prayer of the plaintiff-appellants to the effect that the defendants be restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-appellants, think that prayer is still relevant. I further find that the trial Court did not address to this question nor it considered the principles on the basis of which injunction is granted or rejected. 6. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The lower Court shall consider the prayer of the plaintiff-appellants afresh whether the plaintiffs deserve injunction or not. The principles governing grant of injunction or rejection shall be take into consideration in passing a fresh order on the prayer of the plaintiff-appellants.