CMPMO 426 of 2008. 16.10.2008 Present: Mr. G.D.Verma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. B.C.Verma, counsel for the petitioners. This is the plaintiffs petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur setting aside the interim relief granted to the plaintiff in an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff- petitioner has prayed for a temporary injunction against the defendants restraining them from causing any interference and dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land. The learned trial Court allowed the application and directed that the parties shall maintain status quo qua the nature and possession of the suit land. An appeal was preferred by the respondents to the Court of the learned District Judge, who by his order allowed the appeal and vacated the interim order which was passed by the learned trial Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the orders. One of the grievances made out by the learned counsel is that the learned appellate Court, instead of confining himself to the controversy has conclusively expressed his -2- opinion on certain aspects of the matter regarding ancestral nature of the land etc. which could be done only after evidence had been recorded. He submits that the learned District Judge should not have expressed his opinion on facts which are disputed and yet to be established by evidence. There is no dispute regarding this proposition. It is not open to any Court to hold a mini trial while disposing of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Nonetheless, it would also be trite to observe that any observations made in the order would be confined to that alone and cannot be considered as expression on the respective merits of the cases of the parties. Other apprehension expressed by the learned counsel is that in case the injunction order as prayed for is not allowed to the petitioner-applicant, it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. This apprehension is also ill founded. The principles of lis pendense would always follow the property. In view of the observations made above, this petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. October 16, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.