Short Note : 1. The facts, relevant for disposal of the revision petition, briefly stated, are : The plaintiff-non-applicant filed a suit against the defendants-petitioners for permanent injunction, restraining them from interfering with his possession over Kh. No. 158/2 of village Akoli. The said suit was registered as Civil suit No. 100-A of 1976 of the Court of 4th Civil Judge, Class II Raipur. In the said suit, the plaintiff-non-applicant applied for temporary injunction under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court passed an ex-parte temporary injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. The Court also ordered notices to be issued to the defendants to show cause why the order in question be not made absolute. Thereafter, the plaintiff-non-applicant made an application under Order 39, rule 2 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for taking action against the defendants for disobeying the order of injunction. The defendants 1 and 4 to 8 filed a reply to the said application and denied that they had disobeyed the said order of injunction. The said matter as regards the alleged disobedience of the injunction order was registered as M.J.C. No. 21 of 1976. The trial Court, after hearing the arguments of the parties, passed an order dated 27-12-76 in the said miscellaneous Judicial case to the effect that the case in question be placed for consideration along with the Civil suit and the said case would be disposed of at the time of the final decision of the suit. Against the said order, the plaintiff-non-applicant filed an appeal purporting in the Court of the Second Addl. District Judge, Raipur. The said appeal was registered as Misc. Judicial Case No. 5 of 1977 of the said Court. The learned Addl. Distt. Judge allowed the said appeal and directed the trial Court to dispose of the Miscellaneous Judicial Case in question without waiting for the decision of the suit. It is having been aggrieved by the said appellate order that the defendants-petitioners have filed the present revision petition in this Court. Held : The contention of the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners is that the appellate Court erred in holding that the appeal in question filed by the plaintiff-non-applicants before it was maintainable under the provisions of Order 43, rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Held : The contention of the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners is that the appellate Court erred in holding that the appeal in question filed by the plaintiff-non-applicants before it was maintainable under the provisions of Order 43, rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is contended by the learned counsel that the appeal in question was not competent under the said provision and that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court was liable to be set aside on account of having been passed without jurisdiction. 2. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the revision petition in question has to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the appellate Court has to be set aside. The relevant provision of clause (4) of Order 43, rule 1 of the Code, as in force at the relevant time provided that an appeal shall lie under the provisions of section 104 against an order under rule 1, rule 2, rule 4 or rule 10 of Order 39. Sub-rule (3) of Order 39, rule 2 of the Code provided that in case the disobedience, or of breach of any terms contained in the order granting injunction the Court may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the Civil Prison for a term not exceeding six months, unless in the mean time the Court directs his release. Sub-rule (4) of the Order 39, rule 2 provided that no attachment under the said rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues the property attached may be sold, and out of the proceeds, the Courts may award such compensation as it thinks fit and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto. In view of the abovesaid provisions of Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Order 39, rule 2, it is clear that the order dated 27-12-76 which had been passed by the trial Court in the present case in Misc. In view of the abovesaid provisions of Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Order 39, rule 2, it is clear that the order dated 27-12-76 which had been passed by the trial Court in the present case in Misc. Judicial Case No. 21 of 1976, postponing tile decision in the matter as regards disobedience of the injunction order in question till the final decision of the suit, was not an order against which an appeal could lie under clause (r) of Order 43, rule 1 of the Code. What was contemplated under clause (r) of Order 43, rule 1 was an order deciding the matters, this or that way, under rules 1, 2, 4 or 10 of Order 39 and not an order merely postponing, the passing of an order under the said rules. In view of the said decision, it is clear that the learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners is right in contending that no appeal was maintainable under the abovesaid provision against the order dated 27-12-76 passed by the trial Court in Misc. Judicial Case No. 21 of 1976. The impugned order passed by the appellate Court is thus clearly without jurisdiction. 3. It is true that there was no propriety in the trial Court postponing the consideration of the matter as regards the disobedience of the temporary injunction till the final decision of the suit. The matter covered by the Misc. Judicial Case in question was an independent one and could not be linked with the trial of the suit. However, for the reasons stated above, inasmuch as the impugned order passed by the appellate Court was without jurisdictions, the same has to be set aside. Revision allowed.