JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) read with 151 CPC has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs (hereinafter `the plaintiffs') against the order dated 28-5-2013 passed by Additional District Judge Gangapur City dismissing plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC filed along with the suit for possession and permanent injunction. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order dated 28-5-2013 passed by the trial court. 3. The plaintiffs, sons of one Roomali Devi, filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter `the defendants') claiming therein that the suit house was in the name of their mother Roomali Devi, in respect of which she had been issued a Patta by Gram Panchayat Mahu Kala, Tehsil Gangapur City. It was their case that a room in the suit property had been let out to one Mithlesh Chaturvedi, which was thereafter vacated and possession of the room handed back. It was stated that on 3-12-2012 the defendants along with others forcibly dispossessed the plaintiffs, then in ownership being successors of Roomali Devi, who had expired in the meantime. In the circumstances a decree of possession as also permanent injunction was sought against the defendants. On receipt of summons in the suit so laid, the defendants set up a case that on the basis of sale-deed, executed by Mithlesh Chaturvedi in their favour on 2-12-2013 the defendants had came into ownership and possession of the suit property. It was stated that Mithlesh Chaturvedi had earlier purchased the suit property from Roomali Devi under sale-deed dated 15-9-1997. It was submitted that in any event, one way or other, Mithlesh Chaturvedi under sale-deed dated 15-9- 1997 and thereafter the defendants under sale-deed dated 2-12-2013 were in lawful and settled possession of the suit property, as against the patta-holder Roomali Devi, and her purported successors who were not in possession and now seeking to agitate a suit over 15 years subsequent to the sale of the suit property as early as 15-9-1997 by its erstwhile owner. It was submitted that the issue of rights vesting in defendants under sale deed dated 2-12-2013, and prior thereto in favour of Mithlesh Chaturved under sale-deed dated 15-9-1997 by Roomali Devi in the first instance would be a subject matter of trial. It was submitted that the issue of rights vesting in defendants under sale deed dated 2-12-2013, and prior thereto in favour of Mithlesh Chaturved under sale-deed dated 15-9-1997 by Roomali Devi in the first instance would be a subject matter of trial. It was submitted that in the event the possession of suit property were handed over to the plaintiffs, on an interim application, it would tantamount to final relief and effectively passing of a decree at the interim stage. 4. The learned trial court on consideration of application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC focused its attention on the issue of possession. From the facts on record, the plaintiffs could not satisfy the trial court that they were in possession of the suit property at the time of filing the suit for possession and permanent injunction or even immediately prior thereto. In this view of the matter the learned trial court exercising its discretion under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC thought it fit and proper not to grant injunction in mandatory form or direct that possession of the suit property be handed over to the plaintiffs. Not finding in the application under Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss for the plaintiffs, the trial court dismissed the application for interim relief. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has reiterated the facts set up by the plaintiffs before the trial court and sought reversal of its order. On the contrary, learned counsel for the defendants has supported the impugned order dated 28-5-2013 passed by the trial court. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. In my considered opinion, from the facts of the case prima facie it appears that there were two sale transactions, with regard to the suit property, first in favour of Mithlesh Chaturvedi, and thereafter by her in favour of the defendants, albeit both inadequately stamped and unregistered. The validity or otherwise of the sale transactions would be considered by the trial court on the basis of admissible evidence in accordance with law as would be laid by the parties before it. For the purpose of grant of interim relief, the trial court rightly focused its attention on the issue of possession based on over all facts of the case where from it appeared that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property. For the purpose of grant of interim relief, the trial court rightly focused its attention on the issue of possession based on over all facts of the case where from it appeared that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property. In the circumstances the learned trial court fairly exercised its jurisdiction invoking the principle that there can be no injunction without possession and that grant of mandatory injunction would have entailed granting of final relief at the initial stage against the defendants in settled and apparently permissive possession in the first instance. The impugned order dated 28-5-2013 is a well considered and reasoned order. It is based on an objective consideration of the material before the trial court. No perversity or error is apparent in the impugned order and it occasions no manifest injustice in the facts of case to the plaintiffs. 8. However, in my considered opinion in the interest of justice, the defendants should be directed not to further alienate the suit property or otherwise create any third party interest therein by way of mortgage or any other similar encumbrances. The miscellaneous appeal is accordingly disposed of.The trial court is however directed to expeditiously decide the underlying suit and in any event not later than eighteen months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.Appeal disposed of. *******