Full Judgment
P.K. Misra, J.
1. The plaintiffs have filed this civil revision under the following circumstances.
2. A suit for partition has been filed in the Court of the Civil .fudge (Sr.Divn.), Bhadrak, being numbered as O.S. No. 139 of 1996. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed Misc. Case No. 112 of 1996 for temporary injunction. The said petition was disposed of on 1.5.1996 with a direction to both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the disputed land except three plots namely, plot Nos. 286/4422, 286 and 286/ 4423. The plaintiffs filed Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1996 and Misc. Case No. 26 of 1996, which were rejected by the appellate Court. The plaintiffs filed Civil Revision No. 245 of 1996 in the High Court which was disposed of on 12.9.1996. The High Court while refusing to interfere with the order made the following observations :
'...........However, the petitioners will be at liberty to move fresh application for suitable order, if any subsequent act on the part of the opp. parties on those 3 plots adversely affect their ultimate relief as claimed in the suit.....'
Thereafter, the plaintiff filed Misc. Case No. 448 of 1996 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Bhadrak, contending that the opposite parties had made arrangements and collected materials for making construction over the said plots and prayed to restrain the opposite parties from making any construction. The prayer for injunction having been rejected by the lower Court as well as by the appellate Court, the present civil revision has been filed. During the pendency of the civil revision, an order was passed on 29.8.1997 directing the opposite parties not to make any further construction on the disputed land until further orders.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since a suit for partition had been filed, it would be in the interest of justice to restrain the opposite parties from making any construction over the three plots in question. He has further submitted that the interim order which is operative, should be allowed to continue till disposal of the suit.
The learned counsel appearing for the contesting opposite parties has opposed the prayer for injunction and has submitted that the prayer for injunction having been refused by both the Courts below, no interference is called for in exercise of civil revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. He has further submitted that in case the opposite parties make any construction on the disputed land, they shall not claim any equity.
4. The earlier prayer for injunction has been rejected by both the Courts below. Subsequently, similar prayer has also been rejected by both the Courts below and I hardly see any scope for interference with the order in exercise of civil revisional jurisdiction. While refusing to interfere with the impugned order, 1 make it clear that in case any new construction is made on any of the three disputed plots by any of the parties, no equity can be claimed by such party and, ultimately, in case the suit is decreed and partition is allowed, no equity shall be claimed by any of the parties merely on the basis of any construction made on the three plots in question during the pendency of the suit.
5. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the Civil Revision is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.