ORDER R.S. Garg, J. 1. Present is an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 16-2-2001 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Soorajpur (Sarguja) in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2/2001. 2. The plaintiffs had filed a civil suit in which they had made an application for grant of injunction. In the said suit the defendant also made an application for grant of injunction. The Trial Court rejected the defendants application therefore he preferred an appeal under clause (r) of Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the defendant and restricted the present applicants/plaintiffs from making interference with the defendant's possession over the suit land. Against the order passed in appeal granting injunction in favour of the defendant, the plaintiffs have filed this appeal. On being asked about the maintainability of this appeal learned counsel submits that as the injunction has been granted for the first time in appeal, an appeal under the provisions of Order 43 (1) (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure shall lie to the High Court. In the opinion of this Court the argument is mis-conceived. Order 43 Rule (1) (r) provides that when a Court passes an order on an application submitted under Order 39 Rule 1, 2, 2-A, 4 or 10 then the party aggrieved by the said order may prefer an appeal to the Court to which an appeal lies. In the present case the defendant's application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected and feeling aggrieved by the rejection order he had filed an appeal under Rule 1 or Order 43 clause (r) of Rule 1 of the Order 43 does not say that if an injunction order is granted in favour of the person seeking injunction then aggrieved party can again file a miscellaneous appeal under Order 43. 3. Order 34 is required to be read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under :-- "Section 104. 3. Order 34 is required to be read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under :-- "Section 104. Orders from which appeal lie.-- (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders, and save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any law for the time being in force, from no other orders :-- [(a) to (t) repealed by the Arbitration Act, 10 of 1940]; [(ff) an order under Section 35A]; (ffa) an order under Section 91 or Section 92 refusing leave to institute a suit of the nature referred to in Section 91 or Section 92, as the case may be; (g) an order under Section 95; (h) an order under any of the provisions of this Code imposing a fine or directing the arrest or detention in the civil prison of any person except where such arrest or detention is in execution of a decree; (i) any order made under rules from which an appeal is expressly allowed by rules: (Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order specified in clause (ff) save on the ground that no order, or an order for the payment of a less amount, ought to have been made.) (2) No appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this Section." Clause (1) of Sub-section (1) of Section 104 provides that an appeal shall lie against an order made under rules from which an appeal is expressly allowed by rules. An appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 shall lie against the first order because the rule say that such an appeal shall be permissible. The law nowhere say that even against appellate order granting or rejecting the injunction, a second appeal is maintainable in the High Court. Sub-rule (2) above clearly bars an appeal against the appellate order. 4. This appeal is mis-conceived. It is accordingly dismissed. The plaintiffs shall however be at liberty to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the order in duly constituted proceedings if the law permits them.