JUDGMENT : 1. Prayer for injunction has been made on behalf of the appellants seeking restraint upon the respondents from disturbing their possession and to direct them to maintain status quo over the suit property. 2. The Title Suit No. 01 of 2013 was preferred by the plaintiffs/ appellants herein for the following reliefs :- (A) That it be declared by the court that the plaintiff has his title to the suit-land through adverse possession. (B) That the plaintiff be allowed all costs of the suit. (C) That the plaintiff be allowed any other relief or reliefs to which he may be deemed entitle. 3. Learned Trial Court of Additional Munsif, Palamau (Daltanganj) vide judgment and decree dated 15.06.1979 dismissed the suit with cost against the contesting defendant inter alia holding as under:- “Thus after considering the oral and documentary evidences of the parties I hold that the plaintiff has failed to establish his title by adverse possession. He has not filed a chit of paper to show that the land in suit is in his possession. On the other hand the defendant has filed documents to show his title and possession over the disputed land. These issues are accordingly disposed of. Issues No. 1 and 3. Though these issues were raised by the defendant in his W.S. but has not been pressed at the time of hearing of the suit and also do not find anything against the plaintiff hence they are decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issues No. 2 and 6. After considering the entire fact and circumstances of the case and my finding in Issue No. 4 and 5 as the plaintiff has not filed a chit of paper to show his title by adverse possession the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit and is not entitled to any relief claimed. It is therefore accordingly ordered.” 4. The appellants unsuccessfully prosecuted the Title Appeal No. 44 of 1979 before the Court of 5th Additional District Judge, Palamau (Daltonganj) which was dismissed on 05.04.1980. In Appeal from the Appellate Decree bearing No. 112 of 1980(R), the Learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court was pleased to remand the matter to the learned Lower Appellate Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. In Appeal from the Appellate Decree bearing No. 112 of 1980(R), the Learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court was pleased to remand the matter to the learned Lower Appellate Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. On remand Title Appeal No. 44 of 1979 has again been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28th March, 2003 passed by the Court of 5th Additional District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj impugned in the present Second Appeal. 5. The learned Trial Court has clearly held against the appellants herein, both on the question of title by adverse possession as also the claim of his possession. The first Appellate Court has also in the judgment dated 28.03.2003 not held otherwise. 6. The Appellants herein, however, has sought injunction for restraining the respondent from disturbing his possession inter alia primarily on two grounds:- (i) That even though plea of adverse possession was rejected but the defendants should have been injuncted from evicting the plaintiff from the suit premises without resorting to due process of law. Though the larger main relief has not been granted by learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court but it ought to have granted an injunction against the defendants from evicting the plaintiff except in accordance with law. Such a course was permissible in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Tiwary Versus Basudeo Prasad and Anr. reported in (2002) 1 SCC 90 . Appellants have also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Gurdwara Sahib Vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and Anr. reported in (2014) 1 SCC 669 and Ram Daan(Dead) through LRS. Vs. Urban Improvement Trust reported in (2014) 8 SCC 902 . (ii) Appellants have also enclosed a notice dated 17.11.2016 in Case No. 01/2016-17 issued by the Circle Officer, Satbarwa, Palamau to the I.A. No. 4561 of 2017 for adducing additional evidence in support of their contention that their possession has been recognized over the suit land. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the plea. He has vehemently submitted that both the learned Courts have recorded concurrent findings of facts on the point of adverse possession as also claim of possession by the plaintiffs/appellants herein. The defendant/respondent are in possession of the suit premises. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the plea. He has vehemently submitted that both the learned Courts have recorded concurrent findings of facts on the point of adverse possession as also claim of possession by the plaintiffs/appellants herein. The defendant/respondent are in possession of the suit premises. The suit premises are being occupied by a school and a Stadium is under construction by the respondent-School. Plaintiffs having failed to establish their claim of adverse possession and physical possession of the suit premises, are by an ingenious device now seeking injunction upon the respondent at the second appellate stage, which cannot be granted in law. 8. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent. It is evident from the judgments of the learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court that the plea of adverse possession has been rejected with concurrent finding of facts. The findings of the learned Trial Court on the claim of possession by the plaintiffs/appellants herein over the suit property has not been interfered by the First Appellate court either. It also does not appear from the judgment of the learned Trial Court and Appellate Court that any prayer for restraining the defendant from interfering in the alleged possession of the plaintiffs was either pressed or allowed. The notice dated 17.11.2016 issued by the Circle Officer, Satbarwa, Palamau shows an encroachment by the appellant and others over a piece of land on Plot No. 29 area 1.73 Acre. When there are concurrent finding of facts by both Inferior Courts on the basis of material evidence produced, it is not open for the appellants to plead otherwise at the second appellate stage for seeking an interim relief in the matter. The judgment relied upon by the appellants in the case of Rajendra Tiwary (Supra) related to a suit for eviction under the Rent Control Act in which context observation at para 14 thereof have been made to the effect that where the relief prayed for in the suit is a larger relief and if no case is made out for granting the same but the facts, as established, justified granting of a smaller relief under Order VII Rule 7, similar relief can be granted to the parties. This observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, cannot help the case of the present appellants in the background facts discussed hereinabove, when both plea of adverse possession and possession have been held against them. 9. This Court in the contours of the present appeal need not comment further on the legality or correctness of the notice issued by the Circle Officer, Satbarwa, Palamau in a different proceeding. 10. In such circumstances, this Court is satisfied that plea of interim relief as prayed for cannot be allowed in the instant case at this stage. Accordingly I.A. No. 5347 of 2016 stands rejected. 11. List this case under the heading “For Admission”.