Order This Misc. Appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.3.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hazaribagh, in Title Suit No. 73 of 2012 whereby and where under the petition filed by the appellants under order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has not only been rejected, but the order dated 7.7.2012 by which status quo was granted in favour of the appellants has also been vacated. 2. The case of the plaintiff appellants, in brief, is that Tulsi Bedia, father of appellant no.1, purchased two pieces of land measuring an area of 5 decimals under plot no. 1052 and an area of 6 decimals under plot no.1053, khata no. 33 mauja Marar, Thana no.144, Anchal Ramgarh, through registered sale deed No. 12902 dated 2.12.1980 from vendors, namely, Mani Bedia and Kandan Bedia who were descendants of recorded tenant Lal Sahay Bedia. The sale deed was executed after seeking permission under section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. Tulsi Bedia had constructed two houses on those two plots after having possession over the same and he was enjoying peaceful possession over the same. It is further disclosed in the plaint that after death of Tulsi Bedia, his wife Manjho Devi, executed power of attorney in favour of plaintiff appellant no. 2 for the purpose of mutation of the property and to do legal acts on her behalf. The plaintiff appellant no. 2, at the instance of Manjho Devi, filed an application for mutation which was registered as Mutation Case No. 1061 of 2003, but it was kept pending awaiting final disposal of restoration case No. 9 of 2002 lodged by Kartik Bedia, one of the descendants of Lal Sahay Bedia. That land restoration case was lodged against appellant no.2 since he was having possession over the land in question, i.e. 6 decimals of land under plot no. 1053. It is further contended that respondent no.5 Laldhari Ram got the sale deed executed in his favour with regard to disputed land by Sohri Mostt, wife of Mani Bedia, who had been claiming herself to be the descendant of Ram Sahay Bedia and for that, permission was also obtained under section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. In the litigation after death of Kartik Bedia, his wife Lakhi Devi (respondent no. 8) was substituted and she had been pursuing the matter. 3. In the litigation after death of Kartik Bedia, his wife Lakhi Devi (respondent no. 8) was substituted and she had been pursuing the matter. 3. In the land restoration case no. 9 of 2002, an order was passed on 10.10.2003 by which plaintiff no. 2 (Anil Baran Gope) was directed to hand over possession of the land appertaining to khata no. 1053 measuring an area of 6 decimals after removing all structures standing thereon. Anil Baran Gope, then preferred appeal vide Ran. Case No. 22 of 2003, but he did not get favourable order and it was dismissed on 13.02.2004. Against that appellate order, he preferred land revision case no. 26 of 2004 in which plaintiff no.1 was also made a party. The aforesaid revision case no. 26 of 2004 also stood dismissed on 29.7.2008 and then W.P (C) No. 2626 of 2009 was preferred before High Court which stood dismissed on 13.7.2011. The plaintiff appellant Anil Baran Gope did not stop his journey and filed LPA No. 274 of 2011, but again he failed to obtain any favourable order and the LPA stood dismissed on 7.12.2011. Thus, the original order passed in Land Restoration Case No. 9 of 2002 reached to its finality. 4. Further case of the plaintiff appellants is that the suit property was purchased by father in law of appellant no.1 in the year 1980 after seeking permission under section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, and in this view of the matter another sale in respect of the same piece of land in favour of respondent no. 5 is wholly illegal and untenable in the eye of law and is liable to be cancelled. Considering these aspects of the matter, the plaintiff/appellants filed Title Suit No 73 of 2012 in which initially, status quo was granted, but after appearance of the defendant/respondents, the matter was heard and by impugned order the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has rejected the petition filed for grant of injunction and hence this appeal. 5. It is contended that father in law of plaintiff no. 1 had acquired possession over the land in question after purchasing the same for valuable consideration and sale deed was executed after seeking permission as required under section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. 5. It is contended that father in law of plaintiff no. 1 had acquired possession over the land in question after purchasing the same for valuable consideration and sale deed was executed after seeking permission as required under section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. Since the year 1980 he had been enjoying peaceful possession over the same and he had also constructed two houses on those two plots. The application for mutation was also filed, but it was withheld at the instance of respondent no.5, because he was having an evil eye on the suit land. He had succeeded to obtain sale deed executed in his favour by another descendant of late Lal Sahay Bedia and started causing hindrance in peaceful possession of the plaintiff appellants. It is an admitted position that plaintiff no.1 had been enjoying peaceful possession over the land and building in question since the life time of her father in law Tulsi Bedia. Since plaintiffs were apprehending their dispossession from the suit land, petition for grant of injunction was filed and initially, status was also granted. The impugned order is highly erroneous and illegal, because the learned Civil Judge has failed to consider the required ingredients for the purpose of granting or refusing injunction. The appellants were having prima facie case in their favour since they had been enjoying their peaceful possession over the land in question after its purchase from the year 1980, the father-in-law of plaintiff no.1 had constructed two houses on the aforesaid plots which is also not in dispute. The filing of Land Restoration Case No. 9 of 2002 is also an admission that the plaintiffs were enjoying peaceful possession over the land in question. Therefore, balance of convenience lies in their favour. It was further contended that ouster of appellants from the suit land would certainly cause irreparable loss to them. Therefore, the learned Civil Judge ought to have granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants. It was further pointed out that the impugned order has been challenged before this Court by filing present appeal and during pendency of this Appeal, on 10.9.2013, the appellants were dispossessed from the residential house under the garb of the order passed in Land Restoration Case No. 9 of 2002 and possession was handed over by the Circle Officer, Ramgarh (respondent no.4) to intervenor respondent no. 5. 5. He has further submitted that land restoration case no. 9 of 2002 was filed by Kartik Bedia, husband of Lakhi Devi (respondent no. 8), but possession by the circle officer was given to respondent no.5 (Laldhari Ram) which is illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted, this appellate Court has jurisdiction to restore possession of the plaintiff appellants, because they have been wrongly and illegally dispossessed from the suit property in utter violation of law. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants and submitted that restoration case no. 9 of 2002 was brought against Anil Baran Gope (plaintiff no. 2) who had no right, title, interest or possession over the disputed land appertaining to plot no. 1053, nor he had any document to show as to how and when he came in possession over the said land in question. When the descendants of late Ram Sahay Bedia could learn about illegal possession held by Anil Baran Gope, one of the descendant of Kartik Bedia had filed Land Restoration Case no. 9 of 2002 for restoration of his possession and it was accordingly ordered in his favour. That order passed by the revenue officer stood upheld by the order passed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the LPA No. 274 of 2011. The question of title which the appellants have now raised in Title Suit no. 73 of 2012 could have been raised earlier when they learnt about institution of Land Restoration Case No. 9 of 2002, but they kept it pending. When they did not succeed in getting favourable order in the land restoration matter, they have filed Title Suit No. 73 of 2012 in order to flout the order passed in the land Restoration Case. Learned counsel has also referred to section 258 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, and submitted that the order was passed under section 46(4) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act and, therefore, that order cannot be restrained by filing a suit and submitted that the learned trial court has rightly passed the impugned order. The respondents have also relied on the judgment in the case of Dalpat Kumar Vs. Prahlad Singh (1992(1)SCC 719). (para 4 and 5). 7. I have gone through the impugned order and the documents annexed with the present case record. The respondents have also relied on the judgment in the case of Dalpat Kumar Vs. Prahlad Singh (1992(1)SCC 719). (para 4 and 5). 7. I have gone through the impugned order and the documents annexed with the present case record. It is not disputed by any of the parties that originally, land was recorded in the name of Lal Sahay Bedia who had two sons, Basua Bedia and Girdhari Bedia. Basua Bedia died issueless. Girdhari Bedia was having two sons, namely, Man Bedia and Jugal Bedia. Jugal Bedia had three sons, namely, Kandan Bedia, Ranjan Bedia and Kartik Bedia and this Kartik Bedia had filed land Restoration Case No. 9 of 2002 against Anil Baran Gope (plaintiff no.2). Tulsi Bedia, father in law of appellant no.1 had purchased the property in question from some of the descendants whereas respondent no.5 Laldhari Ram had purchased the property from other descendants and the dispute of title is to be decided in the suit filed by the appellants which is admitted by counsel for both sides. But then the suit was filed after the order passed in Land Restoration Case attained its finality after travelling from the year 2002 to 2011. The plaintiff appellants were not prompt in filing the suit for decision with regard to the title over the land in question and now by filing the present suit, they intend to withhold the operation of the order passed in Land Restoration Case No. 9 of 2002. 8. In the facts and circumstances indicated above, the learned trial court has rightly refused to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff appellants and that too in a situation where the appellant no. 2 is not having a single chit of paper in his favour to hold possession over the disputed land. The question of restoration of possession over the land in question also does not arise because Lakhi Devi (respondent no. 8) has not raised any objection that she has not been given possession over the said land and the possession so restored has been done pursuant to the order passed in Land Restoration Case No. 9 of 2002 which stood upheld in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 274 of 2011 by this Court. Practically, the present appeal against the impugned order has now become infructuous. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Practically, the present appeal against the impugned order has now become infructuous. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.