Judgment Sujoy Paul, J;- 1. By filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 29.9.2012, whereby the injunction was granted to the respondent. The order dated 9.10.2012, by which Misc. Appeal of the petitioners is rejected is also called in question. Facts briefly stated are as under:- The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for injunction in respect of land bearing survey nos. 216/1, 217, 223/1, situated in Tahsil Sironj, District Vidisha. In the said suit for injunction, the trial court passed the order dated 29.9.2012, whereby issuing temporary injunction against the defendants not to dispossess the plaintiff nor create any hindrance in the lawful possession of the plaintiff. This order was unsuccessfully challenged by filing Misc. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, which was rejected by Annexure P-1. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that as per plaint averments and the statements of the plaintiff's witnesses, it is clear that the land in question was given from last two years to Shri Pran Singh on "Batai", this shows that plaintiff was not in possession. In fact, petitioners were in possession. Learned Counsel further submits that petitioners are in fact in possession and they have paid "lagaan"/revenue for the same. By placing reliance on certain provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code, Shri Santosh Agarwal submits that the person who pays the land revenue should be treated to be in possession. The impugned orders are attacked on yet another ground that the suit was only for injunction. The main/final relief cannot be granted by way of interim relief. 3. Per Contra, Shri K.N. Gupta, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri D.D. Bansal, submits that the court below has passed the orders on the strength of the material on record and there is no perversity in the same. There is no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the court below and another view is possible is not a ground for interference at this stage. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. There is a serious dispute between the parties as to who is in possession. There is no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the court below and another view is possible is not a ground for interference at this stage. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. There is a serious dispute between the parties as to who is in possession. The trial court although has rightly held that mere payment of 'lagaan'/revenue does not create any right in favour of any person but the contention of the petitioners that final relief by way of interim relief cannot be granted is neither considered by the trial court nor by the appellate court in Annexure P-1. 6. Considering the aforesaid, I deem it proper to interfere in this matter only on the limited ground that injunction in this manner could not have been passed by the court below. Since there was a dispute between the parties on factual basis as to who is in possession, the proper course would have been for the court below to direct the parties to maintain status quo, which was prevailing on the date of passing of Annexure P-2, i.e., 29.9.2012. Thus, I am only inclined to interfere in this matter on the singular ground that final relief cannot be granted by way of interim relief and accordingly, the orders, Annexures P-1 and P-2, stand modified and the parties are directed to maintain status quo, which was prevailing on the date of passing of Annexure P-2. Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on the merits and entitlement of the parties.