1. - These two appeals have been filed challenging the order dated 15.5.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar, whereby the learned Judge has partly allowed the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiffs, Poona Devi, and Chawli Devi. While the plaintiffs, Poona Devi and Chawli Devi have filed S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1021/2012, Vinod Kumar, the defendant in the civil suit has filed S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1035/2012. Since both these appeals relate to the same impugned order, they are being decided by this common order.

2. The facts are being taken from S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.1021/12. The appellants had filed a suit for presumption against Vinod Kumar, and one Rakesh Kumar. However, an application for temporary injunction was filed only against Vinod Kumar. According to the appellants, their father-in-law, Ballu Ram, had bought a shop, namely shop No.53 from one Sohan Lal Trilok Chand. This shop was purchased in the names of his wife, Patasi Devi and daughter, Tulsi Devi. While he had bought the eastern side of the shop in the name of his wife, Patasi Devi, the western side of the shop was bought in the name of his daughter, Tulsi Devi. In order to fulfill the needs of his family, he constructed a residential area above the shops in the form of first and second floor. Subsequently, they have inherited the shops and the residential area through a Will. After the death of Tulsi Devi, half the part of the shop No.53 i.e. on the western side was surrendered to Rakesh Kumar. The said shop was mutated in the name of Rakesh Kumar in the records kept by the Municipal Council. They further claimed that there is only one staircase on the eastern side, and even to reach the western part of the building one has to go through the staircase, which is situated in the eastern side. In the back of the shop, one Vijay Kumar has set up a business of water-filter. They further claimed that the plaintiffs were willing to buy the portion which went to Rakesh Kumar. Despite the sharing of a common staircase, without informing, Rakesh Kumar has sold part of his property to Vinod Kumar. Therefore, on the basis of sharing of common staircase, the plaintiff claimed right to presumption. Along with the suit, the appellants also filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 for temporary injunction.

3. After hearing both the sides, by order dated 15.5.2012, the learned Judge directed as under:-

"fygktk izkFkZuk i= izkFkhZx.k fo:) vizkFkhZ vUrxZr vkns'k&39 fu;e 1 o 2 rFkk lifBr /kkjk&151 flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk bl 'krZ ds lkFk Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn izkFkhZx.k 15 fnu ds Hkhrj&Hkhrj ;g vaMjVsafdx izLrqr djsa fd oknh dk okn&i= [kkfjt gks tkus ij ,d ekg ds Hkhrj&Hkhrj izFke o f}rh; eafty ds if'peh [kjhn'kqnk fgLlk o xksnke dk if'peh [kjhn'kqnk fgLlk dk dCtk vizkFkhZ dks lqiqnZ dj nsaxs rks vizkFkhZ dks tfj;s vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk rk&QSlyk nkok ikcUn fd;k tkrk gS fd vizkFkhZ fooknxzLr fgLlk ij ihNs dh vksj xksnke ds fgLls o izFke o f}rh; eafty ij fLFkr fookfnr fgLls dk mi;ksx miHkksx djus ls izkFkhZx.k dks oafpr u djs vkSj izkFkhZx.k dks csn[ky u djs vkSj bl fgLlk dks izkFkhZx.k ds vykok vU; fdlh O;fDr gks jgu] cS; ;k nhxj rjhds ls eaqrfdy ugha djsA fookfnr fgLlk esa tks nqdku dk fgLlk gS] ml gn rd izkFkZuk&i= izkFkhZx.k [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA [kpkZ i{kdkj Lo;a ogu djsaxsA"

4. Mr. Ranjeet Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellants, Poona Devi, and Chawli Devi, has contended that while partly granting the temporary injunction in favour of the appellants, the learned Judge could not have imposed a condition upon the appellants that they should give an undertaking within a period of fifteen days to the trial court, that in case of rejection of the civil suit, they will hand over the possession of the first and the second storey of the building as well as the godown in the western side, to the defendant. According to him, since the defendant has not filed any counter-claim, even if, the appellants were to lose the