S.105 of the C.P.C. prohibits challenging the order passed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A in an appeal filed under Order XLI Rule 1.

The short question that arises for consideration in this second appeal is whether a party aggrieved by the dismissal of an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of C.P.C. filed for taking action for disobedience or breach of injunction, can challenge the same in an appeal filed under O. XLI Rule 1 against the original decree, without recourse to a separate appeal as provided under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the code.

The facts necessary for a decision on this point are as follows: Defendants in O.S.600 of 1982 on the file of the Munsiff s Court, Trichur are the appellants. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 7 from entering into the plaint schedule property, cutting and removing trees therefrom and from making a road through any portion of the plaint property. In the suit the respondent contended that on the western side of the plaint property there is a panchayat road lying north to south and another panchayat road lying on the southern side of the property east to west. According to the respondent the appellants requested the respondent to surrender some land for widening these panchayat roads and as he refused to surrender any land, the appellants threatened that they would forcibly take possession of the land for the purpose of the road. Apprehending danger to his property, the respondent filed suit for injunction and other consequential reliefs. The suit was dismissed by the trial court holding that there was no cause of action to file the<< suit, as the respondent had given his consent for the formation of the road. Along with the suit the respondent had moved for interim injunction to restrain the appellants from trespassing into the property. The interim injunction application was allowed and according to the respondent during the pendency of the ad interim injunction the appellants wherein trespassed into the property and committed waste by cutting and removing coconut trees and arecanut trees and other seasonal cultivation. The respondent filed LA. Nos. 1925/82 and 621/83 under Order XXXIX Rule 2 AC.P.C. for taking action against the appellant for violation of the interim injunction. No separate evidence was adduced in these two interlocutory applications. They were considered along with the suit and in the judgment of the Munsiff dated 31-1-1984 it was held that the appellants herein have not done any acts alleged by the plaintiff and that they have not violated the ad interim injunction passed by the court. The suit as well as I.A.Nos.1925/82 and 621/83 was dismissed.

2. as against the dismissal of the suit, the respondent preferred A.S.42ofl985 before the District Court, Trichur under Order XVI Rule I of C.P.C. In the appeal memorandum the respondent challenged the propriety of the dismissal of LA. Nos. 1925/82 and 621/83. As ground No.21 of the appeal memorandum in A.S.42 of 1984 the respondent herein contended that the reasons given by the trial court for disbelieving the evidence of witnesses examined for proving the violation of injunction order are baseless and devoid of merit. The lower appellate court interfered with the decree and judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit as prayed for, restraining the appellants herein from trespassing into the property for cutting open a new road through the property of the respondent. As regards the dismissal of I. A.Nos.1925/82 and 621/83 by the trial court, the lower appellate court held that the appellants herein had violated the ad interim injunction and therefore proceedings have to be initiated against the appellants. The orders passed in I.A.Nos.1925/82 and 621/83 were setaside and the trial court was directed to take further action in the matter. The present appeal relates to the interference made by the lower appellate court as regards the orders passed in I.A.NOS. 1925/ 82 and 621/83. As against the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court no appeal has been preferred by the appell