JUDGMENT S.K. MISHRA, J. : Petitioner, being the respondent in F.A.O. No.1/2013, assails the judgment dated 12.4.2013 of the Court of District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar allowing the appeal of the appellants i.e. the present opposite parties and injuncting the respondent i.e. the present petitioner from interfering in the peaceful possession of the appellants over the suit land. 2.The opposite parties as plaintiffs have filed C.S. No.877 of 2012 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar for confirmation of possession and perpetual injunction. In that civil suit, an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code” for brevity) was filed seeking temporary injunction against the present petitioner. The opposite parties claimed that they have purchased the suit property from the recorded owner Sailabala Mohapatra by registered sale deed dated 9.4.2012 and since then they are in possession over the same by constructing boundary wall all around and going ahead with further construction over the said land. It is stated that the present petitioner having no right has been creating disturbance in their possession by trying to interfere with it and causing obstruction in the construction work. They further claimed to have a prima facie case and state that balance of convenience leans in their favour by further stating that they would suffer irreparable loss in the event the present petitioner is not injuncted from creating disturbance in the peaceful possession of the present opposite parties. 3.The respondent, i.e., the present petitioner, in his objection asserted that the petitioners, i.e. the present opposite parties, have no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. He claimed that he, his mother and brothers are in possession of the same having right, title and interest by virtue of registered sale deed dated 29.7.1986 executed by one Kailash Ch. Rath, S/o. Duryodhan Rath. They claim to be in possession for last 26 years and carrying on paddy cultivation over the same. The Court of first instance on going through the averments made in the plaint, application and objection and so also the documents filed by the parties came to the conclusion that the present opposite parties being the bona fide purchasers, record of right holders and being in possession of the suit land have a prima facie case. The Court of first instance on going through the averments made in the plaint, application and objection and so also the documents filed by the parties came to the conclusion that the present opposite parties being the bona fide purchasers, record of right holders and being in possession of the suit land have a prima facie case. The Court of original jurisdiction also went to observe that the present opposite parties have purchased the land and mutated the same in their names, but again stating that the present petitioner has also purchased the suit land by virtue of the sale deed has gone to pass an order of status quo. In that view of the matter, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), held that since both the parties are claiming their possession, and order of status quo is the only option and, accordingly, directed that the parties shall maintain status quo over the suit land. 4.Learned counsel for the opposite parties being aggrieved by the order carried the matter to the appellate Court which was registered as F.A.O. No.1/2013. The appellate Court upheld the findings of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) to the effect that a prima facie case is well made out in favour of the present opposite parties and, therefore, allowed the appeal by modifying the final order to the extent that the present petitioner should be restrained temporarily from the creating any disturbance in the peaceful possession of the opposite parties over the suit land. Such judgment has been assailed in this writ petition. 5.In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sale deed executed by Sailabala Mohapatra on the ground that she is the daughter of Duryodhan Rath will convey no title in favour of the opposite parties on two grounds. Firstly, it is contended that in the earlier suit bearing No. O.S. No.61/1966 of the Court of Sub-Judge, Bhubaneswar, no share has been allotted in favour of the said Sailabala Mohapatra and the suit land has been allotted to the share of Kailash Ch. Rath, the vendor of the present petitioner. It is also contended that Sailabala Mohapatra is not the daughter of Duryodhan Rath which is apparent from the recitals made in the judgment of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar in the aforesaid suit to the effect that Kailash Ch. Rath denied to have adopted the said Sailabala Mohapatra. Rath, the vendor of the present petitioner. It is also contended that Sailabala Mohapatra is not the daughter of Duryodhan Rath which is apparent from the recitals made in the judgment of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar in the aforesaid suit to the effect that Kailash Ch. Rath denied to have adopted the said Sailabala Mohapatra. 6.On the contrary, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that in the consolidation proceedings, the land has been recorded in the name of Duryodhan and Sailabala being his daughter acquired half share on the land in question and the other half fell to the share of Kailash. The allotment of specific share in pursuant to the preliminary decree passed in the suit has not been taken into consideration by the consolidation authorities and Chaka has been allotted in favour of different share holders. The suit land was recorded in the name of Duryodhan Rath in the year 1977, which has not been challenged as yet. Thus, by taking into consideration the ratio decided by this Court in the case of Biranchi Sahu v. Jujesthi Sahu and others; 74 (1992) CLT 741, learned appellate Court held that the venders of the present opposite parties have right, title, interest and conveyed the same by executing a sale deed in favour of the opposite parties. The appellate Court also held that there is no prima facie materials to disregard the status of Sailabala. The rent receipts filed in the case show that Sailabala has been paying rent with respect to the lands recorded in her name. The record of right prepared in the name of Sailabala has not been assailed as on date. It is further noted by the learned appellate judge that from the side of respondent no record of right has been filed to show that the suit land has been recorded in the name of his vendor. The appellate judge also held that the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) has taken correct view to the extent that the appellants being bonafide purchasers, the R.O.R. standing in their name have a prima facie case in their favour. The appellate judge also held that the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) has taken correct view to the extent that the appellants being bonafide purchasers, the R.O.R. standing in their name have a prima facie case in their favour. 7.Examination of the records in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the findings recorded by the original and appellate Courts, it is seen that the case of the plaintiffs-opposite parties is based upon revenue records which has been obtained from time to time by initiation of appropriate proceeding. Firstly, it is seen that the lands were recorded in the name of Duryodhan in the year 1977 in the consolidation proceedings. Though it is claimed by the opposite parties that the said land has been allotted to the share of Kailash, their vendor. The consolidation R.O.R. prepared in the name of Duryodhan has never been challenged in any forum. After death of Duryodhan, it is seen that a portion of land has been sold by Kailash to some other persons and the remaining land has been recorded in the name of Sailabala. Sailabala was paying rent revenue with respect to the suit land and then she executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs-opposite parties. The plaintiffs-opposite parties thereafter mutating their names with respect to the said land and initiated an application under Section 8-A of the Orissa Land Records Act, 1965 to convert the Kisam of the land in question from “Chakabhukta” to “Gharabari”. In all proceedings public notice has been issued and nobody has challenged the application filed by the present petitioner. 8.Thus on these averments, this Court comes to the conclusion that the ratio decided by this Court in Biranchi Sahu v. Jujesthi Sahu and others (supra) is squarely applicable to the present case. Therefore, the effect of the recording of consolidation R.O.R. in the name of Duryodhan shall take precedence over the allotment of share in favour of Kailash in the final decree proceeding. Coupled with that the facts narrated above show that the plaintiffs-opposite parties are in possession of the land having purchased the same from Sailabala. The revenue records are overwhelmingly in favour of the plaintiffs-opposite parties. Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned District Judge suffers from no infirmity. Coupled with that the facts narrated above show that the plaintiffs-opposite parties are in possession of the land having purchased the same from Sailabala. The revenue records are overwhelmingly in favour of the plaintiffs-opposite parties. Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned District Judge suffers from no infirmity. This Court finds that the a prima facie case exist in favour of the plaintiffs-opposite parties. The balance of convenience leans in their favour as they have already made some construction over the same. It is further held that they shall suffer irreparable loss if injunction is not granted in their favour as the construction already made shall get damaged by the vagaries of nature, if it is not protected. 9.Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the reported case of KISHORE KUMAR KHAITAN AND ANOTHER VS. PRAVEEN KUMAR SINGH; (2006) 3 Supreme Court Case 312; wherein the Supreme Court has held that an order passed by the appellate Court to maintain status quo in respect of suit premises without indicating what the status quo was, is not proper. In that case, the Supreme Court has further held that a Court ask itself a wrong question or approaches the question in an improper manner, even if it comes to a finding of fact, the said finding of fact cannot be said to be one rendered with jurisdiction and it will still be amenable to correction at the hands of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. However, applying this principle, this Court comes to the conclusion that the appellate Court neither asked itself a wrong question nor approached the question in an improper manner. So the allegation that the finding of facts given by the appellate Court is without jurisdiction, is not tenable. 10.With such observation, the writ petition being devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. The Misc. Case is also dismissed. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. Petition dismissed.