JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. SK Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. GK Nama, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent. 2. By filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 08.04.2016 passed by the District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in case No. Civil Misc. 01 of 2015 wherein it has been observed inter alia as under: “In this regard no prima facie conclusion was arrived at. Even after the alleged agreement if possession of the suit land remained with the defendant-appellant since specific performance of execution of deed is in question the defendant-appellant should not be allowed to sell the land to others. Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division) ought to have rely prima facie on the deed of agreement dated 15.03.2012 and to rely on its terms till disposal of Title Suit 22 of 2014. Though specific direction was not given by Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division) but the very order of status quo would serve the purpose. On perusal of the documents as produced along with the lower court record, prima facie it appears to this court that the plaintiff-respondent is in possession of the suit land. So, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division). So, status of the suit land as it appears to this court that suit land remains in the possession of the plaintiff-respondent and that status should be maintained till disposal of Title Suit 22 of 2014”. 3. Mr. SK Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that this observation in the impugned judgment is totally unwarranted as no document as such was submitted by the plaintiff- petitioner to show that she is in possession. On the contrary, it would be apparent from the order dated 19.03.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Civil Misc. 24 of 2014 arising from Title Suit 22 of 2014 that the suit land has been duly mutated in the name of the defendant-respondent, the petitioner in this petition, under Khatian no. 158, Hal Dag no. 4536 corresponding to Sabek Dag no. 3758/3761(part) under Mouja-Dharmanagar town. 24 of 2014 arising from Title Suit 22 of 2014 that the suit land has been duly mutated in the name of the defendant-respondent, the petitioner in this petition, under Khatian no. 158, Hal Dag no. 4536 corresponding to Sabek Dag no. 3758/3761(part) under Mouja-Dharmanagar town. The said land is the suit land over which the plaintiff has claimed that she had entered in a contract to sale with the defendant no.1 of the suit who was not however made party in the injunction proceeding. It has also been observed that it is the plaintiff, according to the petitioner, who has been trying to dispossess him from the suit land. Even a photocopy of the Khatian no. 158 was produced in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) North Tripura, Dharmanagar. On the basis of that, the trial court has observed that the actual fact about the aforesaid agreement dated 15.03.12 will emerge out only after considering the evidence on record which will come out in the original case bearing No. T.S. 22/2014 lodged by the plaintiff/petitioner for specific performance of contract and perpetual injunction. Thereafter the trial court has further observed that but the admitted position that the defendants/OP is in possession of the suit land clearly shows that the Defendants/OP would suffer irreparable injury if he is dispossessed at this juncture and the balance of convenience and inconvenience also lean in his favour. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has further submitted that while altering that finding of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) North Tripura, Dharmanagar, the appellate court has completely ignored the record of right as produced before it. Unless entry in the record of right is rebutted the presumption shall always follow. 4. Be that as it may, the question of the possession in the context of such rival contentions can only be determined prima facie, or which is only required in the stage of the suit that the court can think of a measure which will not prejudice either of the parties. In view of that, the observations of the appellate court as well as the observation of the trial court are interfered with at this stage, but for avoiding the multiplicity of litigation, the parties are directed to maintain the status quo as on 19.03.2015 till disposal of the suit. 5. It is needless to say that Mr. In view of that, the observations of the appellate court as well as the observation of the trial court are interfered with at this stage, but for avoiding the multiplicity of litigation, the parties are directed to maintain the status quo as on 19.03.2015 till disposal of the suit. 5. It is needless to say that Mr. GK Nama, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has fairly submitted that if the status quo is maintained, the plaintiff would not suffer any prejudice. 6. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. LCRs be sent back forthwith.