JUDGMENT Satyendra Singh Chauhan and Ashok Pal Singh, JJ This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 28.5.2014, by means of which injunction has been granted in favour of the respondent in a suit filed for partition. 2. Submission of counsel for the appellant is that the suit itself was not maintainable and was hit by provisions of Order II Rule 2 of CPC. He further submits that evidence on record goes to indicate that the earlier suit for declaration was filed in the year 2002 and later the present suit was filed in the year 2008. He has also submitted that in written statement a specific objection was taken before the trial court that the suit itself? was not maintainable and barred by provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC, but the trial court ignoring the said objection, has granted injunction in favour of the respondent in an illegal manner. 3. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the injunction, which has been granted, is not going to effect the appellant in any manner and rather the property has been protected in its form by restraining the defendants from making any alteration, addition and further proceed for furnishing and finishing in the constructed area. He has also submitted that the question of maintainability of suit has to be decided on the basis of evidence lead during the course of hearing. It is also submitted that interpretation of the Will has to be gone into in the declaratory suit as well as in the present suit, therefore, both the suits are maintainable. 4. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record and we find that the suit in question has been filed for partition along with an application for injunction. The injunction application has been allowed without disposing of the objection filed by the appellant, wherein a specific ground has been taken that the suit itself was not maintainable. Whether the suit is maintainable or whether it is liable to be dismissed, are the questions which ought to have been addressed by the appellant by moving an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, but no such application has been moved by the appellant up till now except a plea has been raised in his written statement that the suit is barred by provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC. The injunction, therefore, in the opinion of the Court, is only to protect and preserve the property, which is the subject matter between the parties. But we find that since the question of title as well as partition is involved in both the suits, therefore, it would be expedient and in the interest of justice that either of the parties may not sell the land in dispute and are restrained from making any further construction in the disputed area during the pendency of the suits. 5. With the above observation and direction, appeal stands disposed of. 6. Let the lower court record be sent back forthwith.