Honble SHARMA, M.—This revision petition has been filed under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1956 against the impugned order of Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawaimadhopur dated 15.3.2002. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the present petitioner-applicant has filed a revenue suit in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hindaun City u/Secs. 53, 88 & 188 of the Act against the non-petitioners-defendants. An application for temporary injunction was also filed along with. The trial Court vide order dated 6.10.2001, after hearing both the parties, passed the order for maintaining status quo of the record and of the land under dispute till the final decision of the pending revenue suit. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court dated 6.10.2001, the present non-petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawaimodhpur under Section 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The Appellate Court, after hearing both the parties, partly allowed the appeal and modified the order made by the trial Court dated 6.10.2001 vide its decision dated 15.3.2002. Aggrieved by the impugned order made by R.A.A., Sawaimadhopur, the present revision has been preferred by the petitioners before the Board. 3. I have perused the record and the orders passed by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court and heard the arguments of the learned counsels of both the parties. The basic objective of any application u/Sec. 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is not to dispossesses the party in possession of the suit land in the garb of any application made by any of the contesting parties. Moreover, on any application for the request made by the plaintiff for temporary injunction u/Sec. 212 along with the plaint of declaration and permanent injunction, the trial Court is supposed to pass an order either accepting the appeal for temporary injunction if supported by substantial evidence or reject the same if prima facie the application is not supported by title, undisturbed possession, balance of convenience and the proof of irreparable loss. Under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, any order made for maintaining a status quo on the suit land, is a bad order in the eye of law since it does not solve any problem of the litigants. On the contrary, rather it creates more confusion to proceed further. 4. Under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, any order made for maintaining a status quo on the suit land, is a bad order in the eye of law since it does not solve any problem of the litigants. On the contrary, rather it creates more confusion to proceed further. 4. The appellate Court, after perusal of the record and hearing both the parties, has modified the order of the trial Court on the ground that the suit land was under cultivation of joint tenancy of both the parties, but at the same time, the prima facie title is in favour of the non-petitioner. The balance of convenience and the question of irreparable loss also favours the non-petitioner. The trial Court has passed the order by overlooking and ignoring the facts of record. 5. The scope of the revision is very limited. At this stage, the Court is only to examine whether the subordinate Courts have erred anywhere in the application of law and appreciation of the facts on record. Since, any order made by the trial Court for maintaining status quo was of no avail and did not give any relief to the contesting parties, hence it was bad order in the eye of law. Therefore, in the present case, the appellate Court has modified the order property. 6. In the above circumstances, I do not find any force and substance in this revision, hence the same is rejected. 7. Pronounced in open Court.