1 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1666/2004. (ABDUL HALEEM & ORS. VS. STATE & ORS.) DATE OF ORDER : 10.03.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. R.R. Nagori for the appellants. Mr. Arvind Shrimali for the respondents. This appeal is preferred to assail correctness, validity and propriety of the order dated 05.06.2004 rejecting an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure. Learned trial court while rejecting the application held that there is no question of creating any hindrance in the mining operations made by the plaintiff-appellants. Learned trial court refused to pass any temporary injunction restraining the defendant-respondents Abdul Haleem, Abdul Raheem, Jameel Ahmed and Abdul Gani from mining operations in the disputed mining lease No.51/2. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellants that no order to restrain the plaintiff-appellants in the area in dispute could have been passed. 2 From perusal of the order impugned, it is apparent that as a matter of fact the trial court nowhere restrained the appellants from proceeding with mining operations. The only effect of the order impugned is that no order of restrainment shall be there against the defendant-respondents Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 from proceeding with the mining operations. As such, I do not find any merit in this appeal, therefore, the same is rejected. It is made clear that the rejection of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure by the order dated 05.06.2004 be not treated as an order of restrainment against the plaintiff-appellants, if they are having any possession over the area in dispute. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/