ORDER : Aggrieved by order dated 18.12.2014 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 107 of 2012, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The Petitioners are plaintiffs in Title Suit No.08 of 2012 which was instituted on 19.01.2012. The respondents appeared and filed their written statement on 03.07.2012. The dispute pertains to 79 decimals of land comprised in Plot No.772, Khata No. 77 in Mouza Rajpura, Dhanbad. The plaintiffs have claimed title over the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale-deed dated 20.02.1973 executed by Anil Bauri, Jyoti Bauri and Moti Bauri. Anil Bauri was the purchaser from the descendant of recorded tenants and Jyoti Bouri and Moti Bouri are descendants of the recorded tenants. The respondents also claimed to have purchased the suit property from one Ajit Kr. Dutta by virtue of sale-deed registered on 13.09.1976. Immediate cause of action for filing Title Suit No. 08 of 2012 is stated to be action of the respondents in demolishing the boundary wall and amalgamating the suit schedule property with their own property. In the pending Title Suit No. 08 of 2012 an application for injunction was filed, in which, on contest, the Trial Court passed order dated 05.04.2012 directing the parties to maintain “status quo”. Challenging the said order the respondents preferred Misc. Appeal No. 107 of 2012 which has been allowed. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Trial Court has found a “prima-facie” case in favour of the plaintiffs still, it declined to pass an order of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. Assailing the appellate order, it is submitted that the Appellate Court did not record a finding that the finding of the “prima-facie” case in favour of the plaintiffs recorded by the Trial Court was perverse or contrary to the pleadings on record and therefore, Appellate Court was not justified in interfering with order dated 05.04.2012 passed by the Civil Judge, (Senior Division) II, Dhanbad. It is further submitted that the Appellate Court has apparently recorded an erroneous finding and interfered with the order dated 05.04.2012 in as much as, the alleged admission in paragraph nos. 18 & 24 of the plaint have been misconstrued by the Appellate Court. 4. As against the above, Mr. It is further submitted that the Appellate Court has apparently recorded an erroneous finding and interfered with the order dated 05.04.2012 in as much as, the alleged admission in paragraph nos. 18 & 24 of the plaint have been misconstrued by the Appellate Court. 4. As against the above, Mr. Rajesh Lala, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the application under Order XXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC must be decided on the principle of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss to the plaintiffs. The Trial Court failed to give reasons for the findings recorded in order dated 05.04.2012. The Appellate Court by elaborate reasons has interfered with order dated 05.04.2012. It is submitted that since the plaintiffs themselves have admitted that they are not in possession of the suit property, the application under order XXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC has rightly been dismissed by the Appellate Court. On these grounds, it is submitted that order dated 18.12.2014 in Misc. Appeal No. 107 of 2012 does not warrant interference by this Court. 5. In so far as, the claim of the parties based on sale-deed executed in their favour is concerned, that would be an issue before the Trial Court in Title Suit No. 08 of 2012. It is admitted that between the parties, a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated which was later on converted into proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The plaintiffs have contended that after they came to possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale-deed dated 20.02.1973 and mutation has been carried in their name. They have been paying rent for the suit schedule property and accordingly, their names appear in Register-II. The learned Trial Court in order dated 05.04.2012, has recorded a finding that there is a “prima-facie” case in favour of the plaintiffs however, in so far as, the balance of convenience is concerned, it is in favour of both the parties. After recording such finding, the Trial Court ordered that the parties should maintain “status quo” till the disposal of the suit. I find that the Appellate Court has also recorded a finding that there is a “prima-facie” case in favour of the plaintiffs. Thus, there is concurrent findings of “prima-facie” case in favour of the plaintiffs recorded by both the Courts. I find that the Appellate Court has also recorded a finding that there is a “prima-facie” case in favour of the plaintiffs. Thus, there is concurrent findings of “prima-facie” case in favour of the plaintiffs recorded by both the Courts. Therefore, the Appellate Court committed a serious error in law in interfering with order dated 05.04.2012 directing the parties to maintain “status quo”. In view of admitted case of the parties, at this stage, the order of “status quo” was intended to preserve the property in question and therefore, it was in the interest of both the parties. Considering the above facts, appellate order dated 18.12.2014 is set-aside and the order passed by the Trial Court dated 05.04.2012 is affirmed to the extent, direction to the parties to maintain “status quo” till the final disposal of the suit, is concerned.