ORDER
Sat Pal, J.
1. None is present on behalf of the respondents. This petition has been preferred against the order dated 16.5.1997 passed by Civil Judge (SD) Hoshiarpur. By this order, the learned Civil Judge has allowed the application filed by defendant No.1 Kartar Singh under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC and has restrained the plaintiffs from interfering into the possession of the defendant No.1 over the suit land till the disposal of the suit.
2. Mr. Parveen Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the application filed by the defendant/respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was not maintainable. In support of his submission the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Ram Chander v. Harbhajan Singh,1986 PLJ 286.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 16.5.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge is not sustainable. A reading of Order 39 Rule 1(c) shows that an interim injunction in a suit can be granted in favour of the plaintiff on an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and there is no provision to entertain an application filed by the defendant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Accordingly, it is held that the learned trial Court was not correct in allowing the application filed by the defendant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 as the application itself was not maintainable under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The view I have taken finds support from the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Chander (supra).
4. For the reasons recorded herein above, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.5.1997 passed by the learned Court is set aside with no orders as to costs. With this order the petition stands disposed of