Judgment Binod Kr. Roy, J. The Defendant 1st party is the appellants. They challenge an order passed at the instance of the plaintiff respondents 1st party herein restraining the appellants from selling any suit properties which includes 1 decimal of land in which he claims to have raised a hut after the falling down of the house in plot no. 21 appertaining to Khata No. 58 and 80 decimals of land in plot no. 22 appertaining to Khata No. 58 of Mauja Nawada, Arrah P.S. Nawada, District Arrah. 2. The plaintiff alleged that the land in question in the old survey stood recorded in the name of Ramnath Lal son of Kashi Nath Lal, who alone was its, owner and has been coming in possession; that in the year 1931, the ancestors of the plaintiff and defendant no. 6 took the land in which there was a mango orchard for watching it on a condition that they share its fruit and they started appropriating jointly the fruits; that Ram Nath Lal in plot no. 21 constructed a room in which there was also a will which was given to the ancestor of the plaintiff and defendant no. 6 for the purpose of having a watch of the land in question; that about 3-4 years thereafter, the trees in the ordered were cut one alter another and as a result of which the land became culturable in which the plaintiffs and the defendants no. 1-6 started growing vegetables and started sharing the income of the produce with Ramnath Lal half-and half and also utilising the vegetable; that in the year 1950-55 Ramnath died issueless and thereafter the plaintiffs and defendant no. 6 continued to cultivate the land in question; that defendant nos. 1 to 5 tried to forcibly cultivate the land in question by calling themselves to be the legal representatives of Ramnath Lal, which however, was not allowed; that on rumours the plaintiffs have heard that the aforementioned defendants are bent upon to create certain documents showing them to be the legal representatives of Rarnnath Lal given by misleading the Court, that they are in possession of the properties described in Schedule 1 for the last several years openly and without any obstruction and thus they have acquired title by adverse possession thereof; that they have also learnt that the defendant-6 and defendant nos. 1 to 5 dispute not having any title or possession are talking with some people to sell out the properties which is in their possession. 3. The plaintiff also filed an application on 19.11.87 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant nos. 1 to 5 from selling the suit properties alleging therein that they want to take possession forcibly in the land in question after creating certain forged and fabricated documents and are talking with Ramakant Pandey of village Narainpur to sell the same illegally. They also asserted that there is prima facie case, balance of convenience is in their favour and that by sale the plaintiff will sustain an irreparable injury. 4. Out of defendant nos. 1 to 5, defendant nos. They also asserted that there is prima facie case, balance of convenience is in their favour and that by sale the plaintiff will sustain an irreparable injury. 4. Out of defendant nos. 1 to 5, defendant nos. 1 to 3 filled their show cause on 3.12.1987 asserting therein that their ancestor Kashi Lal bad four sons Shital Lal, Rajnath Lal, Jhaman Lal, Jhumak Lal; that Shitai Lal had four sons Gaya Lal, Radha Lal, Santlal and Rambelash Lal; that Gaya Lal had a son Barmesbwar Lal and Barmeshwar Lal had three sons Lakshman Lal, Mahendra Lal, and Bangali Lal; that Radha Lal had five sons Kanhaji Sahai @ Kanhaiyaji, Kameshwar Prasad, Kamta Prasad, Bijal Kumar and Jaikumar; that Santlal and Ram Belash Lal died one after another; that Shital Lal, the only brother of Rajnath Lal, though alive bad died about one year ago and since Jhaman Lal and Jhumak Lal had already expired, the entire properties of Rajnath Lal was inherited by his nephew Radha Lal, who also got, it mutated; that Raj Nath Lal died in 1325 Fasli and after his death the entire properties came to his nephew Radha Lal; that apart from the land in question Rajnath Lal held lands in villages Varshi and Dhangaon and that after his death the name of Radha Lal was correctly entered on the basis of he being the legal representative: that the lands in question by virtue of a Khangi partition came to the share of Gaya Lal and Radha Lal and it is accordingly in their possession; that the defendants since 11th March, 1325 Fasli are coming continuously, adversely, openly, peacefully and to the knowledge of all public including the parties as result of which he also acquired title through adverse possession of the land in question; that in the recent survey the lands in question have been recorded in their names, who are also paying rent against the receipts, that the plaintiff had no concern for a single moment with the land in question and the case set forth by him is incorrect and is being denied; that since the plaintiff has neither any prima-facie case nor had he the balance of convenience in his favour or irreperable injury, the application in question is fit to be rejected." 5. It appears that the appellant also prayed for appointment of a Pleader Commissioner seeking his report about the physical feature of the disputed land. The defendants also filed certain documents including the khatiyan, Chowkidari receipts. The plaintiffs also filed certain documents which are on the record. The court below heard the parties and by the impugned order allowed the prayer of the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 holding that he has got a prima-facie case; that even though the learned advocate appearing for defendants no. 1 to 5 has stated that there was no intention to sell away the suit properties, but from the petition it appears that the plaintiff had also disclosed the names of the intending purchaser and thus the balance of convenience is in his favour and not in favour of the defendant; that a lot of inconvenience will he caused to the plaintiff if any document is executed by defendant nos. 1 to 5 and the plaintiffs shall have to implead the transferees as parties which will cause delay to the disposal of the suit for no fault of his; that irreperable injury would be caused to the plaintiffs as he is likely to suffer by the sale mental agony, worry, anxiety on account of delayed decision. 6. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants submits as follows:- (i) The entire claim of the plaintiff of being bataidar of the land in question was incorrect as the provision of Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 was not applicable to the land in question which is situated in the Arrah Municipality. (ii) It was not correct for the court below to state in the impugned order that the learned advocate for the appellants had taken a stand that they do not intend to sell the properties. (iii) The word 'irreperable injury' has got a defined meaning which means only such injury which can not be compensated in terms of money and accordingly the court below was not justified in restraining them from transferring the suit land. 7. Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma, learned council appearing for the plaintiff-respondent no. (iii) The word 'irreperable injury' has got a defined meaning which means only such injury which can not be compensated in terms of money and accordingly the court below was not justified in restraining them from transferring the suit land. 7. Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma, learned council appearing for the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 submits that the question of applicability of Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 could not be the settler of the claim of the bataidar set forth in the plaint which commences with the death of Ram Nath Lal and at any rate hardly relevant so far as the acquisition of title by adverse possession of the plaintiff and defendant no. 4 are concerned. Even assuming for an argument sake that in view of Sub-Section 3 of Section the provision of B.T. Act, are not applicable to the land in question, the finding recorded by the court below that the plaintiff has got a prima-facie case on that ground alone the impugned order can not be said to be vitiated, more so, when it has not been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the said finding is vitiated on account of any other error. No certificate of the learned advocate, who had argued in the court below on behalf of the appellants, has been filed in regard to the statement in the impugned order concerning him and thus it should be presumed that their advocate tad taken a stand in the court below that the defendants bad no intention to sell away the suit properties to anyone. In view of the changed attitude of the appellants the discretion exercised by the court below in favour of the plaintiff restraining the appellants need not be interfered with. It is true that the word 'irreperable injury' means such injury which may be compensated in terms of money but it cannot be said that the court below was not justified in taking into account the mental agony, worry, anxiety of the plaintiff on account of delayed decision of the suit. 8. Coming to the first submission of Mr. Singh, I am of the view that on the materials on the record the question of applicability or non applicability of the Bihar Tenancy Act, was/is hardly relevant inasmuch as the plaintiff has never claimed his title on the basis of being a bataidar of the land in question. 9. 8. Coming to the first submission of Mr. Singh, I am of the view that on the materials on the record the question of applicability or non applicability of the Bihar Tenancy Act, was/is hardly relevant inasmuch as the plaintiff has never claimed his title on the basis of being a bataidar of the land in question. 9. Coming to the next submission of Mr. Singh I find that no special affidavit has been filed telling categorically that their advocate in the court below bad not taken up a stand to the effect that they never intended to sell away the suit properties. The appellants have not even filed a certificate by their advocate in. this regard. The stand however lends support to the apprehension expressed by the plaintiff-respondent that the appellants intend to sell away the suit properties. The fact stated by the plaintiff in the injunction petition that the defendants are talking to one Ramakant Pandey to sell away the suit properties, which will give rise to unnecessary difficulties and may result even in blood shed was not at all disputed in their show because dated 3-12-1987. However, it is a settled law that if a transfer is made during the pendency of litigation, the said sale is hit by the doctrine of lis-pendence and in that event it is open for a plaintiff not to implead such persons as party to the suit. The suit also can not be thrown out on account of a transfer being made during the pendency of the suit. In that view of the matter the finding that the plaintiff shall suffer an irreperable injury is not correct. The word 'irreperable injury' has been subject matter of interpretation by the apex court in the case of Hazrat Surat Sah Vrs. Abdul Saheb 1988 (4) Judgments Today 232 wherein it has been laid down to the effect that it means such injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money and if there is no irreperable injury there is no question of grant of injunction. I am thus of the view that by the intending sale the plaintiff is not going to suffer any irreperable injury. In that view of the matter there was no merit in the injunction petition filed by the plaintiff-respondent no. 1. 10. In the result the impugned order can not be sustained and it is accordingly set aside. I am thus of the view that by the intending sale the plaintiff is not going to suffer any irreperable injury. In that view of the matter there was no merit in the injunction petition filed by the plaintiff-respondent no. 1. 10. In the result the impugned order can not be sustained and it is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed but in the peculiar facts and circumstances without cost. 11. Since the appeal has been allowed on its merit, the petition for interim relief has not been pressed and it is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. Appeal allowed.