ORDER

1. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

2. In this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioners have challenged order dated 15.12.2022 passed in RCS A/275/2022 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division Jobat Distt. Alirajpur and order 10.4.2022 passed in RCSA/50/2022 by the District Judge, Alirajpur whereby application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the CPC filed by the respondent/plaintiffs has been allowed and confirmed.

3. Necessary facts for adjudication of this case are that respondents/plaintiffs have instituted a suit seeking the reliefs of declaration, partition and permanent injunction for the ancestral property(details are given in tabular form) on the basis of being daughterin-law of petitioner no.1 after the death of her husband – Dheerendra.

4. The respondent No.1 and 2 had filed an application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 r/W section 151 CPC seeking injunction restraining the petitioners from alienating the property in question during the pendency of suit. The petitioners opposed the application for injunction by filing reply specifically stating that parties belong to Schedule Tribe community and, therefore, provisions of Hindu Succession Act are not applicable to them as they are governed by their own customary laws. Petitioner no.1 further stated that land mentioned at Serial No.(s) 3,4,6 12 and 14 is of the sole ownership of the petitioner no.1 The land mentioned at Serial No. 1, 2 and 7 has been received in partition by the petitioner no.1. The land mentioned at Serial No. 14 of the table is of the ownership of petitioner No.2.

5. The trial Court after hearing the parties vide the impugned order has partly allowed the application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC holding that the land mentioned at Serial No.3,4,6,12 and 14 is of the sole ownership of the petitioner No.1 and thus no injunction can be granted restraining the petitioner from alienating the property mentioned at Serial No. 2,3,5, 7 to 11. The respondent No.1 and 2 being aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2022 preferred miscellaneous appeal before the Appellate Court under Order 43 rule 1(r) of CPC which was registered as MCA No. 1/2023 since no order was passed by the trial Court in respect of the land mentioned at Serial No. 1 and 14. Thereafter, the appellate Court vide order dated 10.4.2023 partly allowed the appeal of the respondent No.1 and 2 thereby further restraining petitioners from land situated at Serial No. 1 and 14 in addition to the injunction order passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred this petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submitted that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have committed apparent error on the face of the record in passing the impugned orders without considering the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irrepar