JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, J.—Heard and gone through the record. 2. A suit has been filed by the plaintiff for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from causing any interference in its possession over 4 flats bearing numbers 1, 8, 9 and 5 out of 12 flats, which it has constructed on a piece of land owned and possessed by the defendants, pursuant to an agreement of collaboration. As per the terms of the agreement, 12 flats were to be constructed by the plaintiff on the land of the defendants and out of those 12 flats, 9 were to be retained by the plaintiff and three were to be given to the defendants. The money for the construction of all the 12 flats was to be spent by the plaintiff. The flats were to be constructed within a stipulated period, but according to the plaintiff those flats could not be constructed within such period as the defendants did not execute the power of attorney in its favour authorizing it to go ahead with the construction of the flats and also to get the some clearances from the concerned authorities. The plaintiff, besides seeking the aforesaid relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, has claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 17,14,446/-. 3. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed by the plaintiff seeking grant of temporary injunction, restraining the defendants from causing any interference in its possession over the aforesaid flats, during the pendency of the suit. Initially an order of maintenance of status-quo was passed by this Court on 3rd September, 2004, by way of ad-interim ex parte relief. Finally the application was disposed of vide order dated 18th March, 2005. It was observed that Flats No. 1, 8 and 9 having been allotted to the defendants as per agreement of collaboration, the plaintiff was not entitled to any temporary injunction in respect thereof and consequently, the order of ad-interim ex parte relief requiring the parties to maintain status-quo was vacated, as regards the aforesaid three flats. 4. Now the defendants have moved the present application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Now the defendants have moved the present application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the application, it is alleged that despite this Court having vacated the ex parte order of maintenance of status-quo, passed on 3.9.2004, vide order dated 18.3.2004 while finally disposing of the application of the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction, the defendants are being obstructed from entering the possession of the flats. So they have filed this application, seeking restraint order against the plaintiff, not to obstruct the defendants in entering the possession of the aforesaid three flats No. 1, 8 and 9. 5. On a query having been put by the Court, as to under what provision of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure or any other provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, an application of this type by a defendant is maintainable, the learned Counsel for the applicants (defendants) drew the Courts attention to clause(a) of Rule 1 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is reproduced below for ready reference:— "Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted.—Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise— (a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any p>arty to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or (b) ........................................................ (c) ........................................................." Learned Counsel conceded that clauses (b) and (c) of Rule 1 and Rule 2 cannot be pressed into service by a defendant. Learned Counsel argued that since the defendants are not being allowed to occupy the flats in question, the case falls under clause (a) aforesaid. I am not convinced by the argument. It is nowhere alleged in the petition that the property is getting wasted or is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated. There is an observation of this Court in order dated 18th March, 2005 that the aforesaid three flats stand allotted to the defendants. The defendants cannot seek to get possession of these three allotted7 flats by making this type of application. There is an observation of this Court in order dated 18th March, 2005 that the aforesaid three flats stand allotted to the defendants. The defendants cannot seek to get possession of these three allotted7 flats by making this type of application. The defendant can seek a direction to the plaintiff by making an application under Order 39 Rule 1 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, only if it is shown that the property is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by the parties or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree. No such averment has been made in the application. Thus, the prayer of the defendants-applicants is not covered by the aforesaid provision of law. 6. In the alternative, learned Counsel argued that Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is attracted and that the application is also under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I do not think that a defendant who is obstructed in entering the possession of the suit property can seek injunction against the plaintiff, by invoking the provision of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when there is a specific provision in Order 39 Rule 1 under clauses (b) and (c) that the temporary injunction for protecting the possession is available, only to the plaintiff. Perhaps the defendants would have been better advised, to file either a suit or a counter claim and then to make an application for temporary injunction. The present application, in my considered view, is not maintainable and is therefore dismissed. Petition disposed of.