ORDER : Alok Sharma, J. The petitioners-defendants (hereinafter 'the defendants') are aggrieved of the order dated 27-9-2016 passed by the Additional District Judge Kotputli District Jaipur. 2. Counsel for the defendants submits that even while the trial court dismissed the respondents-plaintiffs' (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs') application under Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC vide order dated 6-9-2016, and the appellate court in appeal vide order dated 27-9-2016, affirmed it, in the operation the appellate court inexplicably ordered that status quo yet be maintained. Therefore the order passed by the appellate court is plainly contradictory and ex facie perverse. It has been submitted that the defendants are registered owner of the suit land and in possession and hence in any event no injunction could be issued against them at the instance of a third party. It has also been submitted that the plaintiffs have filed the suit only for permanent injunction without any prayer for declaration of ownership. 3. Mr. Yogesh Pujari, counsel for the plaintiffs has submitted that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for a parcel of the land, which is in their possession. Heard. Considered. 4. The trial court vide order dated 6-9-2016 has elaborately discussed the case of the plaintiffs for grant of interim injunction and found against them as the defendants are registered owners of the suit land and in possession. There was thus no prima facie case found in favour of the plaintiffs, nor balance of convenience or any irreparable injury. The appellate court affirmed the said order in the plaintiffs' civil miscellaneous appeal, yet oddly directed for maintaining status quo for vague and unsustainable reasons. 5. I am of the considered view that the order dated 27-9-2016 passed by the appellate court in the circumstances deserves to be quashed and set aside to the extent it directs maintaining status quo as against the defendants, the registered owners of the land under a registered sale deed. 6. The petition stands accordingly allowed with the modification of the order dated 27-9-2016 passed by the appellate court as directed herein above.