JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of judgment and decree passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu by virtue of which the appeal of the petitioner against the orders dated 14.08.2018 and 18.08.2018 of learned City Judge Jammu, has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Appellate Court on the ground that the judgment is contrary to law and the appellate court has not considered all the pleas and grounds which were pleaded in the memo of appeal. It is contended that the appellate court has not exercised the jurisdiction in accordance with law and respondent No. 2 had filed a suit before the City Judge, Jammu, without disclosing the factum of pendency of another suit filed by the petitioner which is pending before learned 2nd Munsiff, Jammu. The petitioner is one of the co-sharer of the land left behind by his predecessors and same was jointly owned by the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 without effecting partition of the land have sold the land to respondents No. 1 and 2.

3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole aspect of the matter as also the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5102 of 2000 titled "A. Venkataubbiah Naidu Vs. S. Challappan", reported as 2000 AIR (SC) 3032, wherein it has been held that any order passed under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC is appealable before the appellate court.

5. He has also placed reliance on a Full Court Judgment of our own High Court reported as 1982 AIR (J&K) 124 titled "M/s. Astral Traders Vs. M/s. Haji Mohammad Shaban Dar and ors.", wherein it is held that the appeal against the order passed under Order 39 Rules 1, 2 & 4 CPC is maintainable in terms of Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC.

6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a judgment passed in "K.K Puri and ors. Vs. A.K Puri and ors." reported in 1994 AIR (J&K) 25, wherein it has been held that any order of injunction passed under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC which is subject to objections from other side or valid till next date, the appeal should not be entertained against such orders unless the order is manifestly perverse or without jurisdiction or bias of trial is apparent on the face of record.

7. From the perusal of the documents annexed with the petition, it is evident that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction thereby restraining the petitioner, one Surinder Kumar and Sham Lal from interfering into the possession of five marlas of land comprising Khasra No. 19 min, Khata No. 157 min, Khewat No. 15 min situated at Moza Toph Sherkhania, Tehsil and District Jammu. It is further contended that the suit has been filed on the ground that the plaintiffs have purchased the land jointly from Sham Lal vide Sale Deed executed on 23.01.2017, registered on the same date before the Sub Registrar Jammu for a consideration amount of Rs. Twelve Lakhs. It was pleaded in the plaint that the sale deed was reflected in the revenue record and the mutation No. 28 dated 07.02.2017 was also attested in their favour. After the execution of sale deed, the vacant possession of the land was given to them but defendants are interfering into the possession of the land.

8. The court below on 14.08.2018 passed an interim direction in an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The concluding paragraph of the order reads thus:

"I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff/applicant and have perused contents of the plaint, copies of the Sale Deed, Mutation, copy of the letter dated 19.04.2017 are annexed with the plaint.

From the perusal of material/documents on record and the averment made in the plaint, it reveals that applicant/plaintiff has made out prima facie case in his favour. Notice is disposed in view