1»^^ ^ . HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR MANo.19of2007 Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Applicants Plaintiffs 1. Basant Kumar Gupta, aged about 46 years, S/o Badri Prasad. 2. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, aged ^bout 40 years, S/o Badri Prasad. Both R/o Takhatpur, Tahsjl : Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur. Versus 1. Krishna Kumar Gupta, aged 32 years. 2. Basarrt Kumar Gupta, aged about 35 years. S/o Babutal Both R/o Jarhabhata, Bdaspur, Tahsil & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) MISC. CIVIL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 43 RULE 1 OF C.P.C. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 OF C.P.C. Resoondents Defendants Shri Srikumar Agrawal, Sr. advocate with Shri Anand Gupfca for the appellants/ptaintiffe. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 10.05.2007) This Misc. Appeal is being disposed of finally today at the stage of admjssion, without notice to the respondente/defendants. 2. The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated 12.04.2007 passed by 3rd Additional Disfrict Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 16-A of 2007 whereby the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. filed by the appellants/plaintifls was dismissed. 3. The appellants/plaSntiffe had, in the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. filed before the lower Court, not only prayed for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit house till disposat of the suit but also for a mandatory injunction for delivering vacant possessjon of the suit house to the plaintiffs. 4. Shri Srikumar Agrawat, learned Sr. Advocate submitted that he does not assail the impugned order of the lower Court refusing to grant mandatory jnjunction. 5. The only point urged by Shri Srikumar Agrawal, learned Sr. Advocate for the appellants/plaintiffs in this appeal is that learned 3 Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, whjle rejecting the prayer for mandatory injunction, ought to have considered the prayer for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit house till djsposal of the suit. 6. t have perused the impugned order dated 12.04.2007 and find that the submission of learned Sr. Advocate for the appellants/plaintjffs has substance since the learned 3rd Additional District Judge did not at all consider the prayer for temporary injunction for restraining the defendants from alienating the suit house till disposal of the sujt. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the pjeadings on which the sujt was instituted, the learned lower Court js directed to pass appropriate orciers on the prayer of the appeliants/plaintjffe for grant of temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit house till disposal of the suit. Ordered accordingty. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshnmkh Judge