TIWARI, M.—This is a revision petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short `the Act') against the impugned judgment dated 7.8.09 of Revenue Appellate Authority Jaipur. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that during pendency of a regular suit between the rival parties in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer (First) Jaipur an application under Section 212 of the Act was filed before Sub-Divisional Officer for grant of temporary injunction whereupon the Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order for maintaining status quo of the land and record by his judgment dated 7.5.08 aggrieved against which an appeal under Section 225 of the Act was preferred before Revenue Appellate Authority Jaipur who by his impugned judgment dated 7.8.09 modified the judgment of Sub-Divisional Officer and passed an order for maintaining status quo of the land and record to the extent of one-sixth share in the disputed land. Aggrieved against the judgment dated 7.8.09 of Revenue Appellate Authority the instant revision is filed in this court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel of rival parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the non-petitioner No. 1 was not a party to the suit before the trial Court; he was not even a party in the matter of grant of temporary injunction under Section 212 of the Act before Sub-Divisional Officer Jaipur. Even then the appeal filed by non-petitioner No. 1 before Revenue Appellate Authority was wrongly allowed partially by the Revenue Appellate Authority by the impugned judgment dated 7.8.09. The disputed land measuring 46 bighas 11 biswas stands in the joint tenancy of the petitioner and non-petitioners No. 2 to 19. The non-petitioners No. 2 to 19 are bent upon selling the land illegally even without division of holding among the recorded co-tenants. So the order of status quo passed by the trial Court was just and proper which was unduly and illegally modified by the Revenue Appellate Authority. As such the impugned order of Revenue Appellate Authority should be set aside. 5. Opposing the contentions of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner stated that Revenue Appellate Authority has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment and holding that the petitioner is entitled to grant of status quo to extent of one-sixth of her share only and not in respect of rest of the land. 5. Opposing the contentions of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner stated that Revenue Appellate Authority has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment and holding that the petitioner is entitled to grant of status quo to extent of one-sixth of her share only and not in respect of rest of the land. So the judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority should not be interfered with. 6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, perused the impugned judgments and gone through the case file. 7. This dispute pertains to grant of temporary injunction in respect of the disputed land bearing khasra No. 71measuring 46 bighas 11 biswas. Perusal of the judgment dated 7.5.08 of Sub-Divisional Officer Jaipur shows that he has conclusively decided the application of temporary injunction under Section 212 of the Act with the order of maintaining status quo of the land and record pertaining to khasra No. 71 measuring 46 bighas 11 biswas. In appeal Revenue Appellate Authority Jaipur has modified this order of status quo limiting it to one-sixth share of the land which the petitioner-appellant was entitled to according to Revenue Appellate Authority Jaipur by his judgment dated 7.8.09. Both the judgments of lower Courts by which the application under Section 212 of the Act is conclusively decided with the grant of status quo are in utter disregard of provision of Section 212 of the Act. An order of status quo as an interim arrangement till final disposal of the application of temporary injunction is acceptable; but an application under Section 212 of the Act cannot be finally and conclusively decided with the order of maintaining status quo of the land. An order of injunction should be specific and the restrain imposed by grant of temporary injunction should also be specific. Neither section 212 of the Act nor Order 39 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code contemplates an order of status quo till decision of the main suit. This has been held in 1985 RRD 30 as well as 1991 RRD 231 also. Neither section 212 of the Act nor Order 39 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code contemplates an order of status quo till decision of the main suit. This has been held in 1985 RRD 30 as well as 1991 RRD 231 also. It has been held umpteen number of times by this Court that an application under Section 212 of the Act for grant of temporary injunction should be decided on the basis of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury and the order of temporary injunction should be precise and specific and not vague like maintaining status quo as its final order. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the revision is partially allowed and the judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority Jaipur dated 7.8.09 and Sub-Divisional Officer (First) Jaipur dated 7.5.08 are set aside and the case is remanded to Sub-Divisional Officer (First) Jaipur to decide judiciously the application of temporary injunction afresh on merits and pass a specific order either granting or refusing temporary injunction keeping in mind the provisions of section 212 of the Act. Pronounced.