Arun Kumar Jha, J. – The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.04.2019 by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VII, Bettiah, East Champaran in M.A. No. 10 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned Appellate Court has set aside the order dated 19.04.2018 passed by learned Sub Judge-I, Bettiah in Title Suit No. 13 of 2018, restraining both the sides from alienating any part of suit property till pendency of the suit.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent no. 2 are plaintiffs before the learned trial court and the respondents are defendants. The plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 13 of 2018 before the learned Sub Judge-I, Bettiah for declaration of title and confirmation of possession with further prayer for grant of permanent injunction and other ancillary reliefs. In year 1982, father of the original defendant filed a Partition Suit bearing no. 31 of 1982 before the learned Sub Judge, Bettiah. It appears a compromise took place between the parties and Panchanama was prepared on 24.04.1990. The plaintiffs claim right and title over Schedule-2 property of the plaint which have been allotted to the plaintiffs in terms of Panchanama dated 24.04.1990. The plaintiffs claim that original defendant started creating hindrance over the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and also tried to alienate all of the plaintiff’s share of land which the plaintiffs received in the compromise date 24.04.1990. The original defendant also tried to destroy the property of the plaintiff as claimed by the plaintiffs. The original defendant appeared on receipt of notice and filed his written statement and contested the suits on various grounds denying the claim of the plaintiffs. In the meantime, being aggrieved by the constant interference of the original defendant in their suit property, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code”) with a prayer to restrain the original defendant from disturbing the peaceful possession and from interfering with the enjoyment of their property and further to restrain them from creating any third party interest in the property till the disposal of the suit. The original defendant filed a rejoinder to the said application on 13.03.2018 pursuant to the show cause issued by the Court. After hearing the parties the learned trial court, vide order dated 19.04.2018, allowed the injunction application of the plaintiff directing the original defendant to maintain the status quo and not to change the nature of the suit property and not to create any third party interest. Aggrieved by the order of the learned trial court dated 19.04.2018, the original defendant filed M.A. No. 10 of 2018 for setting aside the order of the learned trial court and the learned Appellate Court after hearing the parties set aside the Order dated 19.04.2018 passed by the learned trial court vide its Order dated 25.04.2019. This Order is under challenge before this Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not sustainable as the same has been passed against the facts of the case. The learned Appellate Court did not appreciate that land belongs to the plaintiffs who got the said land in the light of compromise/family arrangement as indicated in Panchanama dated 24.04.1990. The learned Appellate Court failed to consider the reasoning adopted by the learned trial court while passing the order of injunction against the original defendant while considering the family arrangement and the conduct of the parties and tried to protect the property from being dissipated. The learned trial court had taken into consideration that it was defendant/respondents who had nearly sold all of the property. The original defendant did not claim that the plaintiffs were transferring the property or alienating the same and for this reason there was no occasion for t