ORDER 13.2.2002. — Heard. 2. This civil revision is directed against the order of injunction granted by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Pipili, in Misc. Case No. 68/164 of 2000/99 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. arising in Title Suit No. 212 of 1999 and also against the concurrent judgment passed by learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court No. 3), Puri in Misc. Appeal No. 4/61 of 2002/2000. 3. Plaintiffs claim for possession over the disputed suit land on the basis of determination of right of tenancy in favour of their fathers as per the order passed in O.L.R. Case No. 269 of 1981, which was essentially a proceeding under Section 15 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, (in short, ‘O.L.R. Act’). Plaintiff allege that the owner of the property, i.e., defendant Nos. 4 and 5 alienated the property in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 by executing sale deeds and thereafter the said defendants 1 to 3 are creating disturbance in their possession. Accordingly, while instituting the suit for injunction, they also pray for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. 4. Defendants No.1 to 3, who appeared as the opposite parties in the said proceeding for temporary injunction, inter alia, advanced the plea that they were the tenants in possession of the suit land and subsequently they have purchased the same from defendants 4 and 5, and because of that they are in continuous possession of the suit property. Accordingly they claim that their possession should not be disrupted by grant of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners. 5. As noted above, when the Courts below granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore, defendants 1 to 3 have preferred this civil revision as against such concurrent orders of the Courts below. 6. The bone of contention of Mr. D. P. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioners (defendants 1 to 3), is that when the status of the parties as tenants in exclusion to one another is in dispute, therefore the proper recourse of law available to the parties is under Section 16 of the O.L.R. Act, and in view of that the provision in Section 67 of that Act bars the jurisdic¬tion of the civil Courts to adjudicate the dispute. He argues that once the suit is barred under the provision in Section 67 of the O.L.R. Act, it cannot be said that there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs so as to seek for an order of temporary injunction. Mr. N. C. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties (plaintiffs) on the other hand argues that when the plaintiff’s fathers had already been declared as the tenants in O.L.R Case No. 269 of 1981 and the defendants claim rights over the said suit property on the basis of the sale deeds executed by the admitted owner, i.e. defendants 4 and 5, therefore it is not a case of dispute relating to identity of the tenants and, under such circumstance Section 16 of the O.L.R. Act has no applicability and consequentially the provision in Section 67 of the Act is not attracted. In support of his argument, when Mr. Sarangi relies on the case of Dama Swain v. Gangadhar Mohapatra, 61 (1980) C.L.T. 327, Mr. Pati relies on the ratio in the case of Sm. Charubala Devi and another v. Bidyadhar Rout, 1973 (1) C.W.R. 709. In both the decisions though the result of the proceedings have gone in different manner, but the principle of law has been propounded in the same tone and with the same conclusion. It has been settled in those decisions that once the O.L.R. Court has got the juris¬diction, then the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred and ousted under Section 67 of the Act. In the case of Dama Swain (supra). when there was a dispute relating to the identity of the tenants, their Lordships propounded that in view of the such dispute the matter was cognizable under Section 16 of the O.L.R. Act and therefore, the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court, as provided in Section 67, is attracted. The facts scenario narrated above admittedly go to indicate that such is not the dispute in this case. The facts scenario narrated above admittedly go to indicate that such is not the dispute in this case. In the case of Charubala Devi (supra), while considering the case of tenancy determined in an O.T.R. Act Proceeding and the consequential dispute between the said identified tenants and the purchaser of the land from the owner, this Court propounded that the provision of Section 15 of the Act so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court by invoking Section 67 of the O.L.R. Act was not made out and the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. This Court finds that the ratio in the case of Charubala Devi (supra) is identical and applicable to the present case. 7. Taking a prima facie view of the pleadings of the parties, it emerges that while the plaintiffs have instituted the suit asserting their right as the tenants and complaining to the act of the defendants as the successor-in-interest of the owner of the land, the defendants, while admitting the sale transac¬tions, still want to pursue their identity as tenants so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. When admittedly they have purchased the land through sale transactions from the owner of the property, they purchased the status of the said owner with regard to that property. Be that as it may, so far as taking a prima facie view is concerned, this Court does not find from the aforesaid facts that prima facie the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. Of course, after recording of evidence if the circumstances will indicate otherwise, the Trial Court is free to take any view on that issue on the basis of such evidence on record, and this inference of the Court shall not be of any impediment for adjudicating such issues in accordance with law. 8. It is the settled position of law that, it is not only existence of a prima facie case but also the requirement of balance of convenience and irreparable character of loss which should be taken into consideration while considering an application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C. In that respect the Courts below and particularly learned Civil Judge has ex¬pressed his view in favour of grant of temporary injunction, and as against that there is no acceptable argument advanced from the side of the defendants. Under such circumstance, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of temporary injunction. Accordingly, the Civil Revision stands dis¬missed. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners pray to issue a direction to the Court below for early disposal of the suit. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/ opp. parties have no objection to that. Hence, it is directed that issues be settled, if not already so done, and thereafter the suit be taken up for hearing and completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Civil Revision dismissed.