( 1 ) THIS is a revision field against the order in C. M. P. 37 of 1981 granting interim injunction pending disposal of A. S. No. 22 of 1981 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Chittoor,

( 2 ) AT the very outset a question arose, whether it is an appeal under O. 43 or a revision under Section 115, C. P. C. that lies against an order granting interim injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C.

( 3 ) SRI E. Subrahamanyam, the learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that no appeal lies against the instant order ant in this connection he mainly relied on the following authorities: (i) Chellappan v. K. P. Varughese (AIR 1964 Ker 23) (ii) O. C. Kalahasti v. P. C. M. Chetti (AIR 1975 Mad 3) (iii) Domlu Guno v. Yeshadabai (AIR 1978 Goa 31 ).

( 4 ) SRI V. Raghunath Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that an appeal is maintainable and sought permission of the Court to convert this into an appeal. He submitted that S. 104, C. P. C. makes it clear that it is only an appeal under O. 43 (I) (r) that is maintainable against orders made under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, C. P. C. This distinction, he submitted, seems to have been missed in the