x“ MISCELLANOUS APPEAL UNDER ORDER ERULE 1(r ) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 1908 L; )‘gRT' ' :S’F§ E V Iwf{ Whu , ,‘ 1 \‘ tan A\ “gag f J? BEFORE THE HIGH CBgULigPOIFRCmIATTISGARH AT f... j. SINGLE BENCH .‘ V" MA- 5'1 k1 /2005(SB) - APPELLANT V 01. Mohammad Abdul Gaffar aged a’ODEFENDANT-l about 65 years S/o Mohd. Abdul Sattar R/o Palace Road, Po. & Distt : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. APPELLANT .. 02. Asgari Akhter agedabout 40 years JDEFENDANT—3 W/o Firoj Akhtar R/o Chhit'e Attarmura, ‘ Po. & Distt : Raigarh (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENT /01. Ajay Kumar Agrawal aged about 24 «PLAINTIFF ’ years S/o Brijmohan Agrawal, Occupation : Business R/o Danipara Po. & Distt : Raigarh (CG) \V 702. State tofChhattisgarh Through Collector, Raigarh (CG) (9'3. Murlidhar Agrawal aged g about 48 years S/o Netram Agrawal R/o Baikunthpur Po. & Distt : Raigarh (CG) XI-HC—22 Shn' BR. Ghosh, learnq Application (I,A.No. 1 191 Heard on admission. This appeal under qrd H counsel for the appellants. f/ 2005) for'urgent hearing is allowed. pr 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been directedl against the impugned order dated 10.3.2005 passed by 3rd Adcm ional District Judge, Raigarh, in Civil Suit No.1-A/2005. The appe llants are defendants no.1 and 3 in the said suit. Ift appears n01? perusal of the‘impugned order that going through the application nled 3f C.P.C. and alsoafter perusal of the reply thereto passed an order that one SmtvAjgari, wife of Firoz partyr and the plaintiff may take necessary steps for impleading her as a party in the civil suit. The order that till all this exercise is It is against ’ this order only, the appellants have filed this appeal before this Court. the l’e under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 armed trial judge after Akhtar is also a necessary trial court also passed the undertaken, the parties shall' maintain status quo, \1xo‘.“i., ‘ttl ’ S’a’l’ r‘nuluuupsw. n mam mm maih _ mmw mm§w®m %aa%rran%w 03.5.2005 XI—Hc-zz mm WW WHI%H ‘ppncau‘on med by the mama? under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 for gl‘ant of temporaly injunction has not been adjudicated by the tn'a] V has been'made and the app: the said order only. In fact, t final disposal of thednjunctioi under order 43 rule 1(r) of (3.} I am not inclined to ‘interim direction for a period necessary party in the matter. However, a liberty is granted application for expediting hea early date by the trial Court. trial Court will expedite hea Without further delay in the m: With the aforesaid obs disposed of. As 1 have already said, a perusal of the impugned order would show that in fact the a court and an interim arrangement llants have filed this appeal against he appellants should have waited for 1 application before tiling this appeal KC. before this court. admit this appeal against the said for undertaking exerCise of adding a The appeal is summarily dismissed. to the appellant to hle appropriate ring of injunction application at an If such an application is hled, the ring of injunction application itself 1tter. ervation, this appeal stands finally V, .SittL ‘ ,3 V Sunil. Kumar Sinha Judge f” ‘ ' were)