JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Ms. R Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M H Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This Revision application is against the judgment and order dated 12.06.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, No.1, Cachar, Silchar in Misc. Appeal No.16/2010 dismissing the appeal thereby affirming the order dated 03.04.2010 of the learned Munsiff No.2, Cachar, Silchar in Misc Case No.26/2009 arising out of Title Suit No.44/2007. The present petitioners are the defendants in Title Suit No.44/2007 in the said Court of Munsiff, Cachar, Silchar. The respondents as plaintiffs instituted the said suit for declaration of occupancy/tenancy right over the Schdule-1 land and for restoration of possession over the Schedule-2 land and for further confirmation of possession over the Schdeule-1 land and for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs/respondents is that they are the occupancy tenants under Wahab Ali Laskar, the original owner of the suit land who is the predecessor in interest of the proforma defendant Nos. 4 to 8 in Title Suit No.44/2007. The tenancy was with respect to the said land on the condition that six mounds of paddy would be delivered in lieu of rent. During the possession of the plaintiffs/respondents as tenant, Katcha Khatian was issued in the year 1993 and accordingly they were maintaining the possession. In the year 2003 a dispute arose between the parties to the suit following which an FIR was lodged on the basis of which a 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding was drawn. The trial Magistrate in the said proceeding asked both the parties to file the written statement. The present petitioners/defendants filed their written statement in the said 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding and they claimed right, title and interest over the suit land on the basis of purchase, purportedly shown to be executed by the proforma defendant Nos. 4 to 8. The said sale deeds were executed during the period 1997 to 2006 against the total sale consideration of Rs.49,000/-. The possession in the said 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding was declared in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents where after the present defendants/petitioners filed a criminal revision. During the pendency of the revision, the defendants/petitioners tried to dispossess the plaintiffs/respondents from the suit land. The said sale deeds were executed during the period 1997 to 2006 against the total sale consideration of Rs.49,000/-. The possession in the said 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding was declared in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents where after the present defendants/petitioners filed a criminal revision. During the pendency of the revision, the defendants/petitioners tried to dispossess the plaintiffs/respondents from the suit land. Thereafter, the plaintiffs/respondents preferred the Title Suit for the reliefs hereinabove stated along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC with a prayer for temporary injunction restraining the entry of the defendants/petitioners over the suit land and not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs/respondents and also not to change the nature of the suit land. 3. The said injunction application was registered as Misc(J) Case No. 158/2008. The defendants/petitioners filed their written objection against the injunction application along with the written statement. In the written statement and in the written objection they took the plea that they purchased the suit land and was delivered possession by the legal heirs of the original owner, Wahab Ali Laskar. There was no tenancy and/or tenancy right endowed on the plaintiffs/respondents. The claim of the defendants/petitioners is on the said right of purchase and plaintiffs/respondents have no such tenancy right and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit. The proforma defendants in the said suit filed their written statement denying the tenancy of the plaintiffs/respondents. They supported the fact of sale to the petitioners/defendants. The said proforma defendants also brought to the notice of the court that having come to the knowledge of the katcha khatian alleged to be issued in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents lodged their complaint for its cancellation before the Assistant Settlement Officer. 4. The learned Munsiff No.2 disposed of the said injunction application vide order dated 03.04.2010 thereby restraining the present petitioners/defendants from dispossessing the petitioner from the schedule-2 land and from changing nature and feature of suit land in any manner till disposal of the main suit. Being aggrieved, the defendant/petitioner preferred Misc. Appeal No.16/2010 in the court of learned Civil Judge No.1, Cachar, Silchar challenging the order dated 03.04.2010 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.158/2008 (16/2009) arising out of Title Suit No.44/2007. The Appellate Court vide its judgment and order dated 12.06.2012 dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the trial court. Being aggrieved, the defendant/petitioner preferred Misc. Appeal No.16/2010 in the court of learned Civil Judge No.1, Cachar, Silchar challenging the order dated 03.04.2010 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.158/2008 (16/2009) arising out of Title Suit No.44/2007. The Appellate Court vide its judgment and order dated 12.06.2012 dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the trial court. The said judgment and order dated 12.06.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.1, Cachar, Silchar in Misc Appeal No.16/2010 is put under challenge in this revision application. 5. Ms. Choudhury submits that prima facie there is no case in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents inasmuch as the basis of the claim which is a draft khatian had already been cancelled by the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 21.01.2014. It is also stated that on the basis of the sale deed, the defendants/petitioners are possessing the suit land and there is no possession of the plaintiffs/respondents over the suit land. The submission of the plaintiffs/respondents that during the 10 years settlement they were granted the katcha khatian in the year 1993 is totally unbelievable. Wahab Ali Laskar died in the year 1975 and if it is so, then the said settlement under Wahab Ali Laskar could extend till the year 1983 and not beyond that. As pleaded by the plaintiffs/respondents that they were granted draft khatian in the year 1993 is totally unbelievable. In addition to that, Ms. Choudhury further submits that the legal heirs of Wahab Ali Laskar have filed their written statement thereby bringing to the notice of the court that no tenancy exists between Wahab Ali Laskar and the plaintiffs/respondents nor they are aware about the said tenancy. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the orders of the trial court and the subsequent judgments of the Appellate Court are erroneous and totally wrong findings. There is no discussion of the three golden principles by the court below and as such the same are liable to be set aside. 6. Mr. Borbhuiyan objects to the submissions made by the counsel on behalf of the petitioners. It is submitted that there is a strong prima facie case to go for trial inasmuch as the bundle of facts pleaded by the plaintiff/respondent which are disputed by the defendants/petitioners are yet to be proved in the full length trial. 6. Mr. Borbhuiyan objects to the submissions made by the counsel on behalf of the petitioners. It is submitted that there is a strong prima facie case to go for trial inasmuch as the bundle of facts pleaded by the plaintiff/respondent which are disputed by the defendants/petitioners are yet to be proved in the full length trial. Moreover, the claim of the plaintiffs/respondents is protected by a special statue i.e. the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 and as such they are statutory tenant and without examining their pleadings, the court cannot come to a finding merely on the basis of the sale deed produced by the defendants/petitioners. Both the courts below have concluded that there is a prima facie case to go for trial including the balance of convenience which lies in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents. Mr. Borbhuiyan further disputes that Wahab Ali Laskar died in the year 1975 and the same is to be proved in the trial and as such merely on the submission that Wahab Ali Laskar died in the year 1975, a presumption cannot be drawn that the draft khatian was collusive. Accordingly, he submits that no interference is necessary by this Court so far the impugned judgment and order is concerned. 7. Both the courts below at least rightly pointed out that there is a prima facie case to go for trial. The plaintiffs/respondents claimed to be in possession of the suit land and on the other hand, the defendant/petitioners is also claiming to be in possession of the suit land. The right, title and interest cannot be decided at this stage on the submission of either of the parties. Perused the injunction application of the plaintiffs/respondents. In the said application, the prayer sought for by the plaintiff/respondent is for an injunction restraining the opposite parties from forcefully dispossessing the petitioners from the suit land and also from restraining the opposite parties (present petitioners) from changing the nature and feature of the suit land till the disposal of the suit land. This prayer itself goes to show that the claim of the plaintiffs/respondents is contradictory. In one hand they have prayed for injunction restraining the defendants/petitioner from dispossessing them from the suit land and on the other hand, they are asking for the relief of injunction restraining the defendants/petitioners from changing the nature of the suit land. This prayer itself goes to show that the claim of the plaintiffs/respondents is contradictory. In one hand they have prayed for injunction restraining the defendants/petitioner from dispossessing them from the suit land and on the other hand, they are asking for the relief of injunction restraining the defendants/petitioners from changing the nature of the suit land. Accordingly, the said finding of the appellate court cannot be a finding which could be allowed to remain at least till the disposal of the suit. In such a situation, this court has no other alternative but to set aside the judgment and order dated 12.06.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Misc. Appeal No.16/2010. However, this Court directs both the parties to maintain the status quo with respect to the possession of the suit land described in Schedule 2 of the plaint and the nature of the suit land. 8. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed to the extent the direction hereinabove and the same is disposed of.