The scope of an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (r), C. P. C. is limited to examining the validity of an injunction order and does not extend to allowing amendment of the plaint.

( 1 ) THIS revision has been filed by the plaintiff against the order dated 31-31979, passed by the learned District Judge, Dewas, whereby he remanded the case to the trial Court for deciding the application for issuance of a temporary injunction, which was allowed by the trial Court by order dated 11-7-1978 and against which the appeal was preferred by the defendant-non-ap-plicants under Order 43, Rule 1 (r), C. P. C.

( 2 ) FACTS essential for decision of this revision are as under : In a suit brought by the plaintiff-applicant for declaration of title and issuance of a permanent injunction against the defendant-non-applicant he (the plaintiff) submitted an application for issuance of a temporary injunction, whereby issuance oe temporary injunction restraining the defen-dant-non-applicants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the plot in dispute, was claimed. This application was opposed by the defendant-non-applicants-herein on the ground that ihe land belongs to the Gram Panchayat, Panigaon, on allotment, and that the plaintiff-applicant-herein has unauthorisedly constructed a Tapra thereon.

( 3 ) THE trial Court granted a temporary injunction by order dated 11-7-1978. Aggrieved by this order the defendant-non-ap-plicants herein preferred an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (r), C. P. C. During the pendency of this appeal the plaintiff submitted an application for amendment of the plaint seeking impleadment of the State of Madhya Pradesh as a party to the suit. After hearing arguments on the appeal as well as on the application for amendment of the plaint, the learned District Judge has allowed the aforesaid application submitted by the plaintiff and has set aside the order for grant of injunction merely on that ground and has directed the trial Court to examine the case of grant of injunction after impleadment of the Siate Government as a party to the suit, in the manner indicated in the impugned order. Hence this revision.

( 4 ) IN this revision the applicant was heard in person. The applicant contended that the impugned order has been passed in an illegal manner; that it was obligatory on the learned District Judge to have decided the appeal preferred by the non-applicants against the order of grant of interim injunction passed by the trial Court in his favour; that the application for amendment of the plaint could not be decided by him on merits as he was not in seisin of the suit and the application could have been and ought to have been forwarded to the trial Court for decision according to law. Shri N. R. Nevaskar, learned counsel for the defendant-non-appli-cants argued in support of the impugned order. Having heard the applicant and Shri Nevaskar I have come to the conclusion that this revision deserves to be allowed and ihe case deserves to be sent back to the learned District Judge for the purpose indicated hereinafter.

( 5 ) THE appeal before the learned District Judge was one under Order 43, Rule 1 (r), C. P. C. and not a regular appeal. Jurisdiction of the appellate Court while deciding appeal of such a character extends only to examine the validity of an order enumerated in Clause (r) of Order 43, Rule 1, C. P. C. , which runs as under : "an appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of Section 104, namely :- (r) an order under Rule 1, Rule 2, (Rule 2-A), Rule 4 or Rule 10 of Order XXXIX. " Accordingly, the scope of such appeal is limited. It extends to adjudication of challenge to an order of grant or refusal of interim injunction as envisaged by Order 43, Rule 1 (r), C. P. C. As such, the learned District Judge has no seisin over the suit as such. He was seized of proceedings for issuance of a temporary injunction in the suit and not of the suit itself. This aspect of the law appears to have been overlooked by the learned District Judge.

( 6 ) AS a logical corollary flowing from the aforesaid position of law, it has to be concluded that the learned Di