An order passed under O. 39, R. 2, C. P. C. is appealable and not revisable, even if it is mentioned that it may be read with S. 151, C. P. C.

I. S. ISRANI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition against the order dated 11-2-1987 passed by the learned Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 24/87 whereby he allowed the application of the non-petitioner for issue of injunction.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the non-petitioner tenant filed a suit on 2-2-1987 for issue of perpetual injunction with the allegation that the disputed shop was leased out to him on Rs. 40/- per month and that the shop remained closed in the months of September and October, 1986 on account of personal reasons. On 3-11-1986 when he went to the shop, he found that the petitioners put their lock on the shop. Thereafter he met the petitioner No. 1 who assured him to open the lock, but did not remove the lock. Along with the suit an application under O. 39, R. 2 read with S. 151, C. P. C was also filed praying that an injunction in mandatory form may be issued against the petitioners to remove the lock put on the shop illegally. The petitioners submitted their reply to the said application, in which it was alleged that the disputed shop was leased on at Rs. 80/- p. m. and that the non-petitioner had also not paid the rent since some time. It was further stated therein that the non-petitioner had no business in the shop and when the petitioner No. 1 demanded rent from the petitioner, he handed over possession of the shop to him and took away some goods lying in the shop, but receipt of the goods was not allowed to be taken as the rent was still due and it is further stated that the non-petitioner stated that he would remove the rest of the goods after making payment of arrears of rent.

( 3 ) AFTER hearing both the parties, the learned Addl. Munsiff vide his order dated 11-2-1987 allowed the said application and directed the petitioners to hand over possession of the disputed shop within one month, to the non-petitioner by opening their lock, failing which the non-petitioner tenant would be at liberty to make an application to the Court for getting the possession of the shop at the expense of the petitioners. Being dissatisfied with the above order, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioners.

( 4 ) A preliminary objection was raised by Shri Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the non-petitioner to the effect that since the application was filed under O. 39, R. 2 read with S. 151, C. P. C. hence the petitioner could have filed an appeal against the same as provided under O. 43, R. 1 (r), C. P. C. Therefore, no revision could have been filed against the impugned order. Hence the revision petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel Shri R. S. Kejriwal, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has stated that only revision could have been filed against the impugned order as the injunction has been granted in mandatory form, which was beyond the scope of O. 39, R. 2, C. P. C. and the trial Court has evidently exercised its powers under S. 151, C. P. C. and, therefore, since no appeal could be filed against the order passed under S. 151, C. P. C. , it was only proper to file a revision petition against the same.

( 6 ) EVEN though I have heard both the parties on merits also, I am inclined to decide first the preliminary objection raised by the non-petitioner.

( 7 ) MY attention has been drawn to the case of Minerva Siksha Sanuti v. Smt. Mithlesh Kumari, (1985) 1 WLN 1. This was a case in which the application in the trial Court was moved only under S. 151, C. P. C. for grant of mandatory injunction, it was observed by this court in the above authority that "ordinarily under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, C. P. C. a mandatory injunction cannot be issued. The Court in its powers under O. 39, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. maintain status quo as it existed on the date of the suit and hence I am of the view that the petitioner was right in invoking the inherent powers under S. 151, C. P. C. to ob