Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, against the order, dated 05.11.2009, made in Interlocutory Application No.64 of 2009, in Original Suit No. 30 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudalur. 2. It is seen that Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.64 of 2009, had been filed by the first respondent, under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking an order of interim injunction till the disposal of the suit. The trial Court, had passed an order on 05.11.2009, granting an order of interim injunction, as prayed for by the applicant, stating that the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant therein and that irreparable loss will be caused, if such an order is not granted in favour of the petitioner. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present Civil Revision Petition is that the first respondent in the present Civil Revision Petition, who is the plaintiff in the Original Suit in O.S.No. 30 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudalur, had filed the suit, fraudulently. The plaintiff had not established that he had been granted lease, in respect of the suit property, by the first petitioner Company. The plaintiff had claimed that the lease had been granted by the second respondent herein, claiming to be the General Manager of the first Petitioner Company. Infact, the second respondent had been removed from the post long before the lease is said to have been concluded. 4. In such circumstances, the interim order of injunction ought not to have been granted in favour of the first respondent, by the learned District Munsif, Gudalur, in his order, dated 05.11.2009. It is not in dispute that the order, dated 05.11.2009, by the learned District Munsif, Gudalur, in the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No. 64 of 2009, is an appealable order, under Order 34 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. While so, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the same by filing the Civil Revision Petition before this Court, under Article 27 of the Constitution of India. 5. While so, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the same by filing the Civil Revision Petition before this Court, under Article 27 of the Constitution of India. 5. At this stage of the hearing of the Civil Revision Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that the petitioners may be permitted to file an appeal against the order, dated 05.11.2009, made in Interlocutory Application No.64 of 2009,in Original Suit No. 30 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudalur . In such circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, it is made clear that it goes without saying that it would be open to the petitioners to prefer an appeal against the order, dated 05.11.2009, made in Interlocutory Application No.64 of 2009, before the appropriate forum, in the manner known to law. The Registry is directed to return the fair and decreetal order made in I.A.No. 64 of 2009, in Original Suit No.30 of 2009, to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if it is substituted by a certified copy of the said order.