JUDGMENT : Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2] The petitioner-original defendant is aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate Court partly allowing the Misc. Civil Appeal filed by the respondent and directing parties to maintain status quo till the suit is decided. 3] It is the case of the respondent in the suit filed by it that Survey No. 69/1, 69/2 and 69/3 are owned by it. It is further the case that in revenue proceedings the records were sought to be corrected and in that process the total area of aforesaid lands came to be reduced. It is the further case that proceedings before the revenue authorities were being duly prosecuted but the present petitioner started encroaching upon portion of said property by digging pits. Hence, for declaring that the action on the part of the defendant of encroachment on the northern portion of the property was illegal, aforesaid suit came to be filed. An application for interim injunction seeking to restrain the petitioner from encroaching said portion was also filed. The petitioner opposed aforesaid application and the trial Court by its order dated 31.01.2014 rejected the application for temporary injunction . On an appeal filed by the respondent, the appellate Court partly allowed the same and directed the parties to maintain status quo during pendency of the suit. 4] Shri U. P. Dable, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in absence of any prima facie finding being recorded as regards title or that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property, the order of status quo could not have been passed. According to him, the appellate Court on the contrary found that the question of title was itself in dispute and that at said stage no finding could be recorded as to ownership. Despite recording these findings the appellate Court directed the parties to maintain status quo order which in effect amounted to restraining the petitioner from using the property . He further submitted that the necessary ingredients in respect of balance of convenience and irreparable loss were also not found. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Wander Ltd. Vs. Antox India (P) Ltd. 1990 Supp Supreme Court Cases 727. He further submitted that the necessary ingredients in respect of balance of convenience and irreparable loss were also not found. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Wander Ltd. Vs. Antox India (P) Ltd. 1990 Supp Supreme Court Cases 727. 4] Shri P. A. Abhyankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned order and pointed out that the appellate Court on finding that the title to the property was in dispute directed the parties to maintain status quo. He submitted that this order did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. He further submitted that though proceedings before the revenue authorities were in relation to correction of the revenue records, the title of the respondent was not in dispute. He, therefore, submitted that the order of status quo did not deserve to be disturbed. 5] I have heard respective counsel and I have perused the documents on record. The trial Court while rejecting the application for temporary injunction held that the present respondent no.1 failed to make out a prima facie case and that there was no material to come to any prima facie conclusion recording the exact place where excavation work at the instance of the defendant was alleged to be going on. It also found that there was no material prima facie to show any threat or injury to the plaintiff's property. The appellate Court after reconsidering the same material found that there was no document on record to indicate that the land in question belonged either to the plaintiff or to the defendant. In para 22 it was observed that the prima facie case itself was in dispute and therefore the detailed enquiry was necessary. It has further observed that the question of title was in dispute and therefore there was a prima facie case to direct parties to maintain status quo. In para 36 it has further observed that there was no sufficient evidence produced on record by the plaintiff to establish his case and unless the identity of the suit property was decided no party could claim title to the disputed property. On that basis order of status quo came to be passed. 6] An order of status quo in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction has the effect of directing parties to maintain a particular position during pendency of the proceedings. On that basis order of status quo came to be passed. 6] An order of status quo in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction has the effect of directing parties to maintain a particular position during pendency of the proceedings. In fact such order is in the nature of an interim direction by virtue of which both parties are directed to maintain such position as was existing at a particular point of time. Even for the purposes of passing an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo, some prima facie finding in favour of the plaintiff was required to be recorded. While the trial Court held against the plaintiff, the appellate Court despite recording a finding that the prima facie case was in dispute directed the parties to maintain status quo. In absence of any prima facie case and especially after recording a prima facie finding that the title and possession was itself in dispute, there was no legal justification on the part of the appellate Court to direct the parties to maintain status quo. 7] There is one more aspect to the matter. The appellate Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo without actually indicating what the status quo was. The Supreme Court in Kishore Kumar Khaitan Vs. Praveen Kumar Singh (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases 312, while considering a somewhat similar situation observed in paragraph 5 as under: “It is necessary to notice at this stage that in an original suit of this nature, it was not appropriate for the Additional District Judge to pass an order directing the parties to maintain status quo. Without indicating what the status quo was. If he was satisfied that the appellant before him had made out a prima facie case for an ad interim ex parte injunction and the balance of convenience justified the grant of such an injunction, it was for him to have passed such an order of injunction. Without indicating what the status quo was. If he was satisfied that the appellant before him had made out a prima facie case for an ad interim ex parte injunction and the balance of convenience justified the grant of such an injunction, it was for him to have passed such an order of injunction. But simply directing the parties to maintain status quo without indicating what the status quo was, is not an order that should be passed at the initial stage of a litigation especially when one court had found no reason to grant an ex parte order of injunction and the appellate court was dealing with only the limited question whether an ad interim order of injunction should or should not have been granted by the trial court, since the appeal was only against the refusal of an ad interim ex parte order of injunction and the main application for injunction pending suit, was still pending before the trial court itself. Therefore, we are prima facie of the view that the Additional District Judge ought not to have passed an equivocal order like the one passed in the circumstances of the case. But of course, that aspect has relevance only to the extent that before ordering an interim mandatory injunction or refusing it, the court has first to consider whether the plaintiff has proved that he was in possession on the date of suit and on the date of the order and he had been dispossessed the next day. Unless a clear prima facie finding that the plaintiff was in possession on those dates is entered, an order for interim mandatory injunction could not have been passed and any such order passed would be one without jurisdiction.” In the present case also, there is no indication as to the nature of status quo that was required to be maintained. 8] The principles for grant of interim injunction are well settled and reference in that regard can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Wander Ltd. (supra). The appellate Court therefore merely on reconsideration of the matter was not entitled to take a different view especially when it also found absence of a prima facie case in favour of the respondent. In fact there was no reason whatsoever on the part of the appellate Court to have set aside the order passed by the trial Court. The appellate Court therefore merely on reconsideration of the matter was not entitled to take a different view especially when it also found absence of a prima facie case in favour of the respondent. In fact there was no reason whatsoever on the part of the appellate Court to have set aside the order passed by the trial Court. 9] In view of aforesaid the following order is passed: 1] The order dated 31.01.2014 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2014 is set aside. 2] The proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No. 36 of 2014 are expedited and the trial Court shall decide the suit by the end of December 2015. It is clarified that any observations made in this order are only for the purposes of deciding the interlocutory proceedings and the trial Court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order. The suit shall be decided in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.