1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.306/2007 in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge at Indi, (henceforth for brevity referred to as 'trial Court') has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 11.06.2015 passed by the Trial Court wherein his interlocutory application bearing I.A.No.XVIII filed under Order XXXIX, R.2 - A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (henceforth for brevity referred to as 'CPC') was rejected.

2. The present appellant has filed a suit in O.S.No.306/2007 in the trial Court against the present respondents and others for the relief of partition and separate possession. The suit properties inter alia was also included land properties in different survey numbers which according to the plaintiff have been formed into several plots and were sold to different persons by defendant No.1. During the pendency of the said original suit, the present appellant as plaintiff on 12.01.2012 filed I.A.No.XVI for the relief injunction restraining the defendants from undertaking any construction and development works in the suit schedule properties. The said I.A.No.XVI came to be allowed by the order of the trial Court dated 02.08.2012.
Defendant No.1 filed an application on 19.03.2013 in the trial Court under Order XXXIX, R.4 of CPC for recalling the order passed on I.A.No.XVI. The trial Court, after hearing both side, allowed the said application i.e., I.A.No.XVII on 10.06.2015 and recalled the order passed on I.A.No.XVI. In the meantime, on 05.04.2014, the appellant / plaintiff filed application i.e., I.A.No.XVIII under Order XXXIX ,R.2 - A r/w S.151 of CPC in the trial Court requesting to detain defendant Nos.4, 16 and 47 in a civil prison and to attach their properties and to sell them in public auction for payment of compensation for disobedience of the injunction order passed on I.A.No.XVI on 02.08.2012. The respondents filed their objections to the said I.A.No.XVIII. The trial Court after hearing both side vide its order dated 11.06.2015 rejected the said I.A.No.XVIII filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX, R.2 - A of CPC.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff in the trial Court has preferred the present appeal under Order XLIII, R.1(r) of CPC.

4. The respondents are being represented by their counsel.

5. Heard the arguments from both side. The points that arise for my consideration are:
i. Whether an appeal would lie under Order XLIII, R.1(r) of CPC against an order passed rejecting the interlocutory application filed under Order XXXIX, R.2 - A of CPC?
ii. Whether the applicant in I.A.No.XVIII in the trial Court had established that defendant Nos.4, 16 and 47 therein had disobeyed the order of injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff on I.A.No.XVI by the trial Court vide its order dated 02.08.2012?
iii. Whether the impugned order warrants any interference at the hands of this Court?

6. Before the learned counsel for the appellant could commence his arguments on the appeal, the learned counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal under Order XLIII, R.1(r) of CPC against the impugned order. This made this Court to hear both side on the maintainability aspect in the beginning. As such, point No.1 has arisen for consideration.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents in his arguments on maintainability submitted that by virtue of the judgment of Gauhati High Court in the case of Banamali Dey v. Satyendra Chanda and Others reported in 1990 (2) Current Civil Cases 295, Miscellaneous First Appeal under Order XLIII, R.1(r) of CPC is not maintainable against an order of rejection of interlocutory application filed under Order XXXIX, R.2 - A of CPC.
The learned counsel for the appellant in his arguments submitted that this Court in Devikarani v. Venkatesha Sastry reported in ILR 1994 KAR 1444 has held that against an order passed on the interlocutory application filed under Order XXXIX, R.2 - A of CPC, the appeal under Order XLIII, R.1(r) of CPC would lie.

8. Order X