1. Suit titled Abdul Khaliq Mir v. Abid Hussain Bhat & Ors. is pending before the Court of Munsiff, Chadoora. In the application, filed alongside, trial court, vide order dated 27.06.2011, has directed the parties to maintain status quo. Subsequently after objections were filed, application has been disposed of finally vide order dated 28.01.2012, where-under status quo has been directed to be maintained till final disposal of the suit. The petitioners filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the Court of Principal District Judge, Budgam without any success as the same has been dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2012. 2. Being conscious that revision against said order is not maintainable in view of amendment to Proviso to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners have filed the instant petition invoking powers under Section 104 of the State Constitution read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. In the judgment captioned Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & others reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675 , it is clearly laid down that the revision will not lie in view of clear bar against an interlocutory order and even the order passed by the appellate court maintaining or otherwise of the interim order passed by the trial court. It is further provided in the said judgment that amendment to Section 115 CPC does not divest the High Court from exercising supervisory powers available under Section 227 of the Constitution of India but for exercising such power, Court has to be very loath i.e. it is only in exceptional cases, such power can be exercised so as to avoid miscarriage of justice. 4. Respondent claims to be owner of the land measuring 8 kanals 10 marlas covered by survey No. 143 situated at Gangipora Puhroo Tehsil Chadoora and also claims to be residing there within the said area of land. Facing interference in the hands of petitioners, has filed the suit projecting therein that the land in question was orally gifted in his favour by Late Mohammad Abdullah Bhat, father of petitioners No. 1 and 2 and husband of petitioner No. 3, whereas petitioners claim that no such gift was ever made. 5. Facing interference in the hands of petitioners, has filed the suit projecting therein that the land in question was orally gifted in his favour by Late Mohammad Abdullah Bhat, father of petitioners No. 1 and 2 and husband of petitioner No. 3, whereas petitioners claim that no such gift was ever made. 5. The trial court, after considering Commissioner's report regarding position on spot and the records, has appreciated the case on the basis of celebrated principles governing grant or otherwise of the interim relief, thereafter has passed the order of status quo. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that: a) the suit as field by the respondent is hit by Order IX Rule 9 CPC as prior to the institution of the suit, the respondent had filed one more suit which has been dismissed in default on 21.12.2006when the counsel for the petitioners (defendants therein) was present, therefore, respondent is precluded from filing fresh suit on the same cause; b) the suit is hit by the doctrine of res judicata; and c) the alienation by oral gift is not permissible under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. All these grounds were taken before the trial court as well as before appellate Court but have not been considered. 7. While considering the submissions and the record as available on the file, no exceptional case is made out so as to hold that the operation of order of status quo shall cause miscarriage of justice. Both trial court as well as appellate court have rightly chosen not to comment on the grounds projected otherwise either party would get prejudiced at the trial. Those are the grounds open for adjudication because court has to frame the issues. In case any issue will be found purely based on question of law, same has to be treated as a preliminary issue, otherwise if the issues are based on mixed question of fact and law, then have to be decided after trial. The trial court has also to look into the other aspect as to whether on same cause earlier dismissed suit was instituted or not. 8. Pending determination of the issues in the suit, by way of interim arrangement, "status quo" is to operate so as to protect the party in possession of the suit property. The trial court has also to look into the other aspect as to whether on same cause earlier dismissed suit was instituted or not. 8. Pending determination of the issues in the suit, by way of interim arrangement, "status quo" is to operate so as to protect the party in possession of the suit property. The petitioners have placed on record copy of the written statement as filed by them before the trial court, in para 2 of the para-wise reply, they have alleged that the respondent (plaintiff) is just an illegal encroacher and trespasser of the suitland which belong to the petitioners (defendant No. 1 to 3.The position of the respondent(plaintiff) to be trespasser, is a triable issue. 9. In afore-stated background, no exceptional case is carved out which would warrant indulgence of this Court by exercising power under Section 104 of the State Constitution read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Such power cannot be exercised so as to defeat the very object of the amendment incorporated in Section 115 of CPC. Therefore, no interference, at this stage, is warranted. Petition, as such, being without merit, is dismissed along with connected CMP. Observations made shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition. 10. Copy of the order be sent to the trial court as well as to the appellate court for information.