Sujoy Paul, J.

1. With the consent of parties, the matter is finally heard.

At the outset, learned Counsel for the parties agreed to address the Court on the question of preliminary objection raised by Shri D.D. Bansal, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1.

2. Shri Bansal submits that a bare perusal of impugned order dated 20.5.2011 shows that it is an ad interim order directing maintaining status quo between the parties, which is necessarily an order passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By passing the said order an interim injunction was granted and reply was directed to be filed on the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure Thus, the Respondent submits that it is, in fact, an order passed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure On the contrary, learned Counsel for the Petitioner Shri Jitendra Sharma submits that it is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on which the stay order was passed and such an order is not appealable.

3. Per Contra, Shri D.D. Bansal submits that it is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under:

Order XLIII-Appeal from orders-

1. Appeal from orders.--An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of Section 104, namely:

(r) an order under Rule 1, Rule 2 [rule 2A], Rule 4 or Rule 10 of Order XXXIX;

4. To elaborate, Shri Bansal submits that it is necessarily an order under Order XLIII Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure only and it is appealable. He relies on AIR 1982 NOC 5 (CAL.) (Kamalendu Chanda v. Dilip Kumar Biswas), wherein it is held that "order granting interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 or Rule 2 is an appealable order under Order XLIII Rule 1(r)". He further relies on the judgment of Allahabad High Court reported in AIR 1992 ALL 215 (Ishrat Husain Khan v. Addl. District Judge, Gorakhpur and others). In the said matter in paragraphs 6 and 7 the High Court opined as under:

6. As to whether an appeal was maintainable before the appellate court in respect of the ad interim injunction granted by the trial court is only a technical objection. The fact remains that interim injunction was granted which could be granted under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure as also under the provisions of Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure If the trial Court has granted injunction under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure the import of the injunction is the same which is of the order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure Therefore, the consideration of the appeal against the interim order by the first appellate court was not barred and the appeal could not be held to be untenable merely because Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure was invoked by the trial Court. The trial court does not say that such an injunction cannot be passed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure is generally invoked in the matter of grant of temporary injunction where the case is not covered by Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure It was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bhadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, reported in AIR 1962 SC 527: (1963 All LJ 169) that there being on such expression in Section 94, Code of Civil Procedure which expressly prohibits the issue of a temporary injunction in circumstances not covered by Order 39 or by any rules made under the Code, the Courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary injunction in circumstances which are not covered by the provisions of Order 39, Code of Civil Procedure if the court is of the opinion that the interests of justice require the issue of such interim injunction.

7. The interim order granted by the trial court could have been granted under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure also it was not a case where Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Pr