Order.-The defendants in two suits, who were the respondents in the appeals preferred against the suits and petitions filed under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 and section 151, Civil Procedure Code, are the appellants in the two civil miscellaneous appeals. The facts in both the cases are identical and therefore, it is enough if the facts in one of the suits viz., O.S. No. 725 of 1974, are mentioned . 2. The suit, O.S. No. 725 of 1974 was filed by the respondents in C. M. A. No. 288 of 1977, for declaration of their right to be in possession of the suit lands as cultivating tenants and for a permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs asked for an order of interim injunction, while the defendants asked for the appointment of a receiver. It is not necessary to refer to the order passed by the trial Court on those petitions. The suit was tried in due course and was dismissed. Against the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Sub-Court, Kancheepuram and, once again, filed a petition (under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 and section 151, Civil Procedure Code for temporary injunction till the disposal of the appeal). The Subordinate Judge, after hearing the other side, has allowed the petition and ordered temporary injunction in ‘favour of the appellants before him till the disposal of the appeal. As against the order of temporary injunction, the defendants-(respondents before the lower appellate Court) have preferred this Civil miscellaneous appeal. 3. When the appeals were taken up for hearing Mr. Sundaravaradan, learned counsel for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection stating that no appeal lies against the order of temporary injunction granted by the Subordinate Judge. As authority for this contention, he cited C. Kalahasti v. P. C. Munuswami Chetti1, which was decided by me. Mr. Subbiah, learned counsel for the appellants, countered the objection of Mr. Sundaravaradan by stating that the decision in C. Kalahasti v. P. C. Munuswami Chetti1was rendered under different circumstances and the facts of the present case would not attract the ratio laid down in that case. In addition, he submitted that it is the decision in Ramaswamy v. Chinna Sithammal2, which would govern the case of the appellants. 4. On a consideration of the matter, I find there is force in the contention of Mr. Subbiah. In addition, he submitted that it is the decision in Ramaswamy v. Chinna Sithammal2, which would govern the case of the appellants. 4. On a consideration of the matter, I find there is force in the contention of Mr. Subbiah. C. Kalahasti v. P. C. Munuswami Chetti1, was a case where a plaintiff filed an application under Order 39, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code before the trial Court for a temporary injunction. On the trial Court dismissing the petition, the plaintiff, preferred a civil miscellaneous appeal against that order and filed another petition under Order 39, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code before the appellate Court for temporary injunction. When the appellate Court granted temporary injunction, the defendant in the suit filed a further appeal to this Court. It was in that situation, I held that an appeal against the order of the appellate Judge, which itself was passed in an appeal against a petition under Order 39, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code will not lie as sub-section (2) of section 104 placed an embargo on such appeal. This position has been clarified by N. S. Ramaswami, J., in Ramaswami v. Chinna Sithammal2in the following words: "As against that order an appeal was filed to this Court and Natarajan, J., held that the appeal does not lie. It is pointed out that even though an order under Order 39, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code is an appealable order under Order 43, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, the order having been made by an appellate Court, sub-section (2) of section 104, Civil Procedure Code applied and that, therefore, the appeal was not competent. On the facts of that case, if I may say so with respect, the decision of Natarajan, J., is unexceptionable. As seen above, the order which was appealed against, though made under Order 39, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, had been passed in an appeal which itself was one against an appealable order. The appeal before the Court which passed the order questioned before Natarajan, J., was really one coming under section 104, that is, an appeal against an appealable order. The appeal before the Court which passed the order questioned before Natarajan, J., was really one coming under section 104, that is, an appeal against an appealable order. But, the observations of the learned Judge are sought to be construed as laying down the law that no appeal lies against an order passed in any appeal even though the order is an appealable one under one or other of the clauses of Order 43, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judge could not have possibly meant it so." The above passage, if I may say so with respect, correctly portrays my decision in C. Kalahasti v. P. C. Munuswami Chetti1, and I am thankful to my learned brother, N.S. Ramaswami, J., for having elucidated the ratio laid down in C. Kalahasti v. P. C. Munuswami Chetti1. 5. In the instant cases, the orders which are appealed against before this [Court were not passed in appeals preferred under Order 43, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, but were ones passed in appeals preferred under section 96 of the Code. Therefore, as pointed out by N. S. Ramaswami, J., in Ramaswamy v. Chinna Sithammal2 , the Civil miscellaneous appeals are not barred by sub-section (2) of section 104 of the Code. Hence the preliminary objection in each of the two appeals cannot be sustained . The appeals will therefore stand posted for further hearing on merits. 6. This appeal having been set down this day (25th February, 1978) for further hearing in pursuance of the order, dated 13th December, 1977 and made herein in the presence of Mr. S. Subbiah, Advocate for the Appellants in each of the Appeals and of Mr. R. Sundaravaradan for Mr. C. S. Prakasa Rao,. Advocate for the respondents in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 288 of 1977 and for the Respondent in C.M.A. No.288 of 1977 and for the Respondent in 289 of 1977. The Court made the following Order.-Both the appeals have common features though they have been preferred by different parties. The respondents in the two appeals claim to be cultivating tenants. For a declaration of their status as cultivating tenants and for a decree for permanent injunction restraining their respective landlords from dispossessing then, they filed suits in the Court of the District Munsif, Tiruvallur. The respondents in the two appeals claim to be cultivating tenants. For a declaration of their status as cultivating tenants and for a decree for permanent injunction restraining their respective landlords from dispossessing then, they filed suits in the Court of the District Munsif, Tiruvallur. Both the suits ended in dismissal and the finding rendered in the suits was that the tenants-plaintiffs were not in possessions and were not entitled to the reliefs asked for by then in the suits. As against the judgment and decree of the trial Court in their respective suits, the tenants preferred appeals to the Subordinate Judge of Kancheepuram. In the appeals they once again asked for an order of temporary injunction in their favour. The applications were opposed by the concerned landlords. The Subordinate Judge, without going into the merits of the case or the prima facie entitlement of the petitioners in the applications for temporary injunction, or the balance of convenience of the parties, has passed a cryptic and confusing order and that has necessitated the landlords to come forward with these two appeals. The order passed by the Subordinate Judge in each case is as follows: "Counter filed. Arguments heard, status quo prior to judgment of the lower Court to be maintained. Petition closed." It is needless to say this is hardly a satisfactory or proper disposal of the petitions in the two appeals by the Subordinate Judge. He has not considered the rival claims of the parties as to who is in possession of the property. He has also not touched upon the finding of the trial Court as to who was in possession of the property. The order does not also indicate as to what was the status quo prior to the judgment that is to be maintained by the parties. The position before the trial Court was that the tenants had filed petitions for temporary injunctions, but no orders were passed on those petitions. On the other hand, on petitions filed by the landlords a receiver had been appointed by the trial Court to harvest the standing crops on the lands and that order was not set aside by the Subordinate Judge on appeal to him. In such circumstances, the direction of the Subordinate Judge that status quo prior to the judgment of the lower Court should be maintained is clearly misleading and ambiguous. In such circumstances, the direction of the Subordinate Judge that status quo prior to the judgment of the lower Court should be maintained is clearly misleading and ambiguous. The Subordinate Judge should have disposed of each of the petitions with reference to the contentions of the parties and he must indicate in the order whether the tenants are entitled to an order of injunction in their favour or not and give his reasons for the order passed by him in the petition. 8. The Appellants are therefore justified in their grievance about the manner in which the Subordinate Judge has passed orders on the injunction petitions. Therefore, both the appeals will stand allowed and the papers will be remitted to the Subordinate Judge for fresh disposal of the interlocutory applications in accordance with the directions contained herein. The parties will bear their respective costs. The Subordinate Judge will dispose of the petitions within four weeks from the date of receipt of the records and if possible, he will dispose of the main appeals themselves expeditiously .