ORDER J.S. ARORA, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel, who has appeared on behalf of respondent nos.6, 7 and 8. Despite valid service of notice, respondent nos.1 to 5 have preferred not to appear. 2. The present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred against an order dated 25.10.2010 passed in Title Partition Suit No.32 of 2009, whereby petition filed by the plaintiff-appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Sections 94 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of injunction has been rejected. 3. Shri J.S. Arora, learned counsel for the appellant submits that despite the fact that prima facie case was in favour of the plaintiff and other ingredients were also in his favour, the learned Sub Judge-I, Patna, without assigning any reason, has rejected the petition. He submits that the suit property is in jointness and no partition had taken place even then defendant nos.1 and 2 had transferred some of the suit property to defendant nos.6 to 8 and as such it was a fit case for restraining all the defendants/respondents including purchaser/respondent nos.6 to 8 from further alienating the property involved in the suit. 4. Shri Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel for respondent nos.6 to 8/purchaser submits that some of the properties were purchased by respondent nos.6 to 8 from defendant nos.1 and 2 prior to filing of the partition suit i.e. on 23.12.2008 through registered sale deed. Thereafter, respondent nos.6 to 8 have already got possession over the suit property and as such it cannot be said that prima facie case is in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. He further submits that before the court below, defendant nos.1 and 2 had taken specific plea that partition in between plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 5 had taken place long back and they were enjoying their own share and the defendants have transferred their own share properties to respondent nos.6 to 8. 5. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. From the order sheet, it is evident that in the suit before the court below only after completion of appearance of all the parties, injunction petition was filed. 5. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. From the order sheet, it is evident that in the suit before the court below only after completion of appearance of all the parties, injunction petition was filed. It further appears that the respondent nos.6 to 8 had got the property in question through registered sale deed and they are also in possession over the suit property and as such the court is of the opinion that learned court below has rightly not granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. The impugned order does not require any interference. 6. The appeal stands dismissed. 7. However, keeping in view the fact that all the parties have already appeared before the court below, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case so that trial may come to its logical end without un-necessary delay. At this juncture, it is desirable to observe that during the pendency of the suit before the court below, the respondent nos.1 to 5 may not further alienate any of the suit property. It goes without saying that any observation given by this Court may not prejudice the court below since the present order was passed while hearing a petition for grant of injunction. 8. With above observation and direction, the appeal stands disposed of.