Nishitendu Chaudhury, J.

1. By this appeal under Rule 43, Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 (the State of Nagaland and others) have challenged the order dated 24.4.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior), Dimapur in Civil Misc. Case No. 2/2012 arising out of Civil Suit No. 3/2009 whereby prohibitory injunction restraining the present appellants was granted. The sole opposite party (Thilixu B village) represented by its head Gaonbura filed the aforesaid Civil Suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (senior), Dimapur praying for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of possession. It was stated in the said plaint that pursuant to an agreement entered into with original Thilixu village on 16.9.2000, the plaintiff village was established on 16.1.2001 upon the land donated by the said Thilixu village and this is why the plaintiff village was named as Thilixu B village. It was pleaded that about 29 families inhabited the said village but the Chief Wildlife Warden, Rangapahar Wildlife Sanctuary (defendant No. 5) took forceful possession of the said Thilixu B village and thereafter, the Addl. Deputy Magistrate promulgated an order under Section 144Cr.P.C. there on subsequently on 214/2005. Under the aforesaid circumstances and having failed to get possession otherwise, the plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over schedule A land which has been described in the plaint. The said schedule A land as described in the plaint is reproduced below:--

SCHEDULE-A

Land measuring approximately 1000 Acres under the Thilixu-B Village (Thilixu-B) which is bounded by;-

North:--Forest land (Now Touluozoma Village)

East:--Rangapahar Forest Road

South:--Doyapur Road

West:--Dhansiri River.

2. Along with the said plaint, the plaintiff appear to have filed an injunction petition as well praying for injunction for restraining the present appellants from entering and carrying out developmental and construction work of any nature till the suit was decided. The said injunction petition was registered as Civil Misc. (J) Case No. 10/2009. The appellants who were defendant Nos. 1 to 5 submitted written statement as well as objection against the injunction prayer made in Civil Misc. Case 10/2009 and the learned trial Court after hearing the parties on 17.7.2009 rejected the injunction prayer in M.C. No. 10/2009 on 4.8.2009. This order attained finality and no appeal was preferred. The said order dated 4.8.2009 is a part of record being Annexure-K to the memo of appeal.

3. Subsequently, the present opposite party (plaintiff) filed another application for injunction by filing Misc. (J) Case No. 2/2012 and thereby prayed for prohibitory injunction restraining the present appellant Nos. 4 and 5 from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over Schedule B land which is a part of Schedule A land as disclosed in the prayer of the Misc. case itself. The schedule B and schedule A land have been described in the injunction petition. It appears that schedule A land as described in the petition is the same schedule A as referred to above i.e. in the plaint of the main suit. The appellants/defendant Nos. 1 to 5 submitted their written objection in Misc. (J) case No. 2/2012 wherein it was specifically mentioned in paragraph 1 that an earlier prayer for prohibitory injunction by the same Court in the same suit with respect to the schedule A land had been rejected on 4.8.2009. But this time by a cryptic order dated 24.4.2012, the same Judge allowed the prayer for injunction however, restraining the petitioner of the Misc. Case also from making any developmental work and construction on the schedule B land. It is against this order the present appeal has been preferred.

4. I have heard Mr. K. Sema, learned Addl. Advocate General, representing the appellant Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. N.K. Luikham, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

5. The learned Addl. Additional Advocate General