ARUN BHANSALI, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 27/8/2016 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

2. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed as well as permanent injunction against the petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 5. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC was filed; the application was rejected by the trial court vide its order dated 15/11/2008. The respondent filed S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1705/2008 against the order dated 15/11/2008. In the said appeal an ad interim order dated 19/12/2008 directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the suit property was passed and it was also directed that the plaintiffs shall not alienate the suit property. The order passed on 19/12/2008 was confirmed by order dated 18/5/2011. Ultimately, this Court decided the appeal by its order dated 26/5/2014, whereby, the appeal was disposed of directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the suit property till the disposal of the suit.

3. Where-after, the respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order 39, Rule 2A CPC against the petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 5 alleging disobedience of the order dated 19/12/2008 passed by this Court, whereby, the respondent No. 2 Babulal executed sale deed dated 24/6/2013 in favour of the petitioner and respondents no. 3 to 5. A reply to the application under Order 39, Rule 2A CPC was filed, where-after, the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was filed by the petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 5 on the ground that the application under Order 39, Rule 2A CPC was not maintainable.

4. The trial court after hearing the parties, by the impugned order came to the conclusion that the High Court by its order modified the order dated 15/11/2008 passed by the trial court and for the alleged violation of the said order the present application has been filed and, therefore, the order of the High Court has merged in the order of trial court and order of the trial court would be the order as passed by the High Court and, therefore, it cannot be accepted that the application is not maintainable and consequently dismissed the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court committed error in rejecting the application inasmuch as the provision of Order 39, Rule 2A CPC specifically provides that the court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may pass orders under the said provision and as admittedly the injunction was granted by the High Court, the application under Order 39, Rule 2A CPC could not be maintained before the trial court and, therefore, the said application was liable to be rejected.

6. Reliance was placed on the judgment in case of Chev. K.M.Joseph v. St.Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church & Ors. : AIR 2004 Karnataka 474.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order passed by the trial court. It was submitted that once the order passed by the trial court was modified by the High Court and the appeal was decided by order dated 26/5/2014 and application under Order 39, Rule 2A CPC was filed on 30/5/2014, it cannot be said that the application was not maintainable inasmuch as the order of the High Court would substitute the order as passed by the trial court and once the said order was in currency, the application was very well maintainable before the trial court and, therefore, the revision petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

8. Reliance was placed on Bajrang Lal Sharma & ors v. Saluddin Ahmed & Anr. : 2012 (4) WLC (Raj.) 728.

9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

10. It is not in dispute that the trial court had rejecte