JUDGMENT RAGHUBIR DASH, J. 1. This appeal is in challenge of order dated 02.04.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in I.A. No. 176 of 2013 arising out of C.S. No. 304 of 2013 allowing the I.A. and restraining the appellants from entering upon the suit land and creating any disturbances or interference with regard to the suit land during pendency of the suit. 2. The present respondent is the plaintiff-petitioner and appellant Nos. 1 to 7 are defendants-opposite parties before the learned lower court. 3. The case of the respondent-plaintiff is that it purchased the suit land Ac.1.700 out of which an area of Ac.1.590 has been mutated in its name and in respect of the balance area mutation cases are still pending. The suit plot No. 392/1773 measuring Ac.2.000 was originally leased out in favuor of one Kanduri Rout. Subsequently, the same was cancelled by the A.D.M. Bhubaneswar which was challenged before this Court and on a direction to the A.D.M. to reconsider the matter, and after such reconsideration, the order granting lease was confirmed by the A.D.M. The order of confirmation was under challenge in two P.I.Ls. with self-same prayer which were dismissed against which S.L.Ps. filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were also dismissed. Thus, the lease in favour of Kanduri Rout stood confirmed. Further case of the plaintiff is that it purchased the suit land under different sale deeds executed by legal heirs of Kanduri Rout and remained in possession thereof. Thus, the plaintiff claims to be the true owner in possession of the suit land and asserts that it has invested huge money to utilize the suit land for commercial purpose. It is further alleged that the opposite parties representing the Puja Committee having no manner of right, title, interest and possession over the suit property are trying to encroach the suit land and creating disturbance over the same. Hence, the petition for interim injunction. 4. Each of opposite party Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7 has filed separate objection. In their objections they have raised points on maintainability of the suit. They have also taken the stand that the plaintiff-petitioner is not in possession over any part of the suit land which has been under the possession of the Puja Committee since time immemorial. Neither its vendors, nor late Kanduri Rout was ever in possession over the suit property. In their objections they have raised points on maintainability of the suit. They have also taken the stand that the plaintiff-petitioner is not in possession over any part of the suit land which has been under the possession of the Puja Committee since time immemorial. Neither its vendors, nor late Kanduri Rout was ever in possession over the suit property. It is also claimed that there is a temple of Lord Hanuman within the suit land. It is also asserted that Dusserah festival and other auspicious functions of Lord Hanuman are taken place over the suit land. Thus, it has been utilized by the people of the locality for public purpose. It is also contended that the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner have been created to show fake purchase and the R.O.R. and rent receipts filed by the plaintiff are manufactured documents. 5. Learned trial court dealt with the points raised by the defendant-opposite parties on maintainability of the suit and observed that the same are not sustainable. Dealing with the documents relied on by the parties, the learned trial court observed that the sale deed and rent receipts furnished by the plaintiff-petitioner support plaint averment that after the purchase it has been in possession of the suit property. On one sale deed (R.S.D. 1585 dated 15.02.2007) relied on by the defendants-opposite parties showing purchase of a patch of land measuring Ac.0.30 under khata No. 474/82, Plot No. 392/1773 Mouza-Patia, learned trial court observes that the said document does not reflect the specific portion of land that has been alienated under the deed. Learned trial court has further observed that when the opposite parties claim adverse possession against the original owner, i.e. State Government, taking the stand that they have been in exclusive possession thereof since long they have not filed any scrap of paper showing their long possession over the suit property and such claim of adverse possession runs counter to their assertion that they have purchased Ac.0.30 land out of the suit land from Golap Rout and others which, according to the learned trial court, is inconsistent with the defendants’ claim of communal rights over the suit land. The trial court being satisfied that the plaintiff is in possession of the entire suit property held that its possession should be protected otherwise the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and the balance of convenience would lean against it. 6. This being a petition for interim injunction, the Court is required to find out whether the three necessary ingredients are available in favour of the petitioner or not. The petitioner has shown a prima facie case in its favour in as much as it has prima facie shown to have acquired title over the suit land having purchased from the legal heirs of Kanduri Rout in whose favour lease pata has been issued, whereas the plea of adverse possession taken by defendants has not been prima facie satisfied by placing any document. It is also not shown by the defendants-opposite parties as to on which plot the existing Hanuman Temple situates. There is no document showing that over any portion of the suit land the Puja Committee has ever held any religious functions. Therefore, the plaintiff-petitioner can be said to have a prima facie case of title and possession over the suit land whereas defendants-opposite parties have not made out a prima facie case that the suit property is in their possession. 7. According to the plaintiff, it has invested huge amount to make use of the suit land for commercial purpose. On the other hand, the defendants-opposite parties claim that the Puja Committee wants to construct a huge Hanuman statute of 120 ft. height within the suit land. When the defendants have failed to make out a prima facie case in their favour, if such a statue is allowed to be constructed it would be difficult on the part of the plaintiff to get restoration of the nature and character of the suit land. For that reason the balance of convenience can be said to be leaning in favour of the plaintiff and it would suffer irreparable loss if the opposite parties are not restraining from entering into the suit land. 8. The following points of maintainability of the suit have been raised by the defendants: (i) Though the suit filed against the defendants is covered Order-1 Rule-8, C.P.C. the requirement of sub-rule-2 of the said Rule has not been complied with. 8. The following points of maintainability of the suit have been raised by the defendants: (i) Though the suit filed against the defendants is covered Order-1 Rule-8, C.P.C. the requirement of sub-rule-2 of the said Rule has not been complied with. (ii) One earlier suit, i.e. C.S. No. 840 of 2012 with the self-same relief has been withdrawn by the plaintiff without obtaining leave of the Court to file a fresh suit for which the present suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions under Order-23 Rule-1(4), C.P.C. 9. With regard to point No. I it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that a petition seeking for permission under Order-1 Rule-8(1)(a), C.P.C. to sue the defendants in representative capacity has already been filed which is pending consideration by the learned trial court for which it cannot be said that the suit is not maintainable. In this regard reliance has been placed on a decision Smt. Ram Piari vs. Shri Amar Singh and Others, AIR 1978 HP 22 wherein it has been observed that it is open to the trial court to dispose of such an application even during the stage of arguments and that the leave can be granted at any stage after the suit has been filed. 10. As regards point No. II it is argued that though a petition seeking withdrawal of the earlier suit was filed with a prayer to allow the suit to be withdrawn with liberty to re-file the same, if necessary, but while passing the order dismissing the earlier suit as withdrawn, the learned court below simply observe that the prayer made in the petition was allowed. Therefore, it is submitted, in view of the decision of this Court Hari Basudev vs. State of Orissa and Others, AIR 2000 Orissa 125 the order passed dismissing the suit as withdrawn shall be deemed as implied leave has been granted to withdraw with liberty to file fresh suit. In the reported case a petition under Order-23 Rule-1(3), C.P.C. was filed stating therein that the petitioner had reserved his right to file a fresh case, if necessary and on that petition the learned Civil Judge permitted to withdraw the case. This Court has observed that in the circumstances of that case the permission to institute a fresh case was impliedly granted. Therefore, second point on maintainability raised by the appellants is without any substance. This Court has observed that in the circumstances of that case the permission to institute a fresh case was impliedly granted. Therefore, second point on maintainability raised by the appellants is without any substance. 11. It is claimed by the plaintiff that the defendants are constructing a Hanuman statue on a portion of the suit land. For that a proceeding under Section 144, Cr. P.C. was initiated by the plaintiff. In that proceeding (Misc. Case No. 795 of 2012) the defendants filed objection claiming that they had started construction of a statue of Lord Hanuman in Plot No. 457 under Khata No. 619 of Mouza Chandrasekharpur belonging to the Government. Inviting attention of this Court to this averment it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the construction of the statue is not over any of the plots covered in the plaint schedule and yet, no recourse has been taken by the plaintiff for a local inspection to show that the alleged construction is over the suit land. In my considered view, this objection has got no bearing on the dispute in hand. If the defendants are going to install the statue on a plot which is not included in the plaint schedule, then the interim injunction granted against them would have no operation as against such construction work. They can very well proceed with such construction on a piece of land which is not part and parcel of the suit land. 12. In view of the discussion made above, this Court finds no reason as to why the impugned order shall be interfered with. The appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost.