B.P.SINGH, J.

1. These two civil revision applications have been taken up together. The parties in both the civil revision applications are the same and the factual background is also common. Civil Revision 376/87 (R) is against an order dated 6-11-87 passed in Misc. Case No. 22/87 granting a mandatory injunction in favour of opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 and against the petitioner directing the petitioner to vacate the premises in question and put the opposite parties 1 to 4 in possession thereof. Civil Revision No. 377/87(R) is against an order of the same date in Title Suit No. 133/80 whereby the Court refused to grant permission to the petitioner to withdraw the suit. It may be stated that Misc. Case No. 22/ 87 also arises in Title Suit No. 133 / 80.

2. The facts which are not in dispute are that opposite party No. 5, Shankar Lal Bageria filed a suit in the year 1980 for the eviction of opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the petitioner herein Smt. Indrawati Debi purchased the suit property by a registered deed of sale from opposite party No. 5 Shankar Lal Bageria. The registered sale deed is dated 10th Oct. 1983. In view of the purchase of the suit property by the petitioner she was added as plaintiff No. 2 in the suit by order dated 14-8-1984. It is of some significance that evidence in the suit had concluded and 30th Oct. 1987 was the date fixed for arguments in the suit. The Court was closed for Puja Vacation for some time and it was to reopen on the 30th Oct., 1987.

3. Certain developments took place during the period when the civil Courts were closed for Puja Vacation and reference may now be made to those facts. According to the petitioner, there was a settlement with opposite parties Nos. 1 and. 3 in regard to handing over possession of the suit property to the petitioner with effect from 26th of Sept. 1987. The said settlement is said to have been recorded on stamp paper but so far that document has not seen the light of the day. According to the petitioner, in accordance with the settlement reached, they took possession of the suit property. Since the matter was settled amicably between the parties when the Court reopened on the 30th of Oct. 1987, she filed an application for withdrawal of the suit. The permission to withdraw the suit was refused by the trial Court and hence Civil Revision No. 377/87 has been preferred by the petitioner.

4. On the other hand according to the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 in the early hours of 27th Sept. 1987 the husband of the petitioner along with his son and son-in-law and other musclemen came to the house in question and started throwing away belongings of the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4. They misbehaved with the ladies in the house and forcibly took possession of the house except one room. It is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner is a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police. The allegation of the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 is that he used his influence to perpetrate such atrocities on opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4. Immediately a report was made to the police and a case was registered under Ss.147, 448, 323 and 380 Indian Penal Code, 1860 . The case is said to be still pending. According to the aforesaid opposite parties, the petitioner and her husband and others took advantage of the situation and finding the Court to be closed they forcibly dispossessed them from a major part of the house leaving them confined to just one room. It was under those circumstances that when the Court reopened on 30th of Oct. 1987, an application was filed on their behalf under S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for issuing a mandatory injunction directing the petitioner to restore possession of that portion of the house from which they had been forcibly dispossessed during the pendency of the suit.

5. Both the applications were filed before the Court when it reopen