JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 10.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff/respondent against the order dated 06.08.2016, rejecting his application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 read with section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure by the Civil Judge, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar, has been allowed. 2. The facts leading to the present writ petition are that the plaintiff claiming himself to be a tenant filed a suit, seeking permanent injunction that the defendant be restrained from evicting him without following due process of law. 3. The learned Trial Court rejected the plaintiff's application for grant of temporary injunction. However, in an appeal filed by the plaintiff, the appellate Court granted protection to the plaintiff in the following terms:- ^^vihykFkhZ@ÁkFkhZ lhrkjke dh vkSj ls ÁLrqr fopkjk/khu vihy Lohdkj djrs gq, fopkj.k U;k;ky; flfoy U;k;k/kh'k lwjrx< }kjk nhokuh fofo/k Ádj.k la[;k 57@2016 'kh"kZd lhrkjke cuke dSyk'k esa fnuakd 06-08-2016 dks ikfjr vk{ksfir vkns'k dks vikLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk vÁkFkhZ@ÁR;FkhZ dSyk'k dks tfj, vLFkkbZ O;kns'k ikcan fd;k tkrk gS fd og ewy in ds fuLrkj.k ds nkSjku oknxzLr ifjlj ls ÁkFkhZ@vihykFkhZ dks fcuk fof/kd ÁfØ;k viuk;s csn[ky ugha djs rFkk oknxzLr edku ds fctyh] ikuh ds fcy tc rd vihykFkhZ@ÁkFkhZ tek djokrk jgs rc rd mlds fctyh] ikuh ds dusD'ku dkVus ls Áfrcaf/kr jgsA vkns'k lquk;k x;kA vkns'k dh Áfr lfgr fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk vfHkys[k vfoyEc ÁfrÁsf"kr fd;k tkosA vihy i=koyh Qslyk'kqekj gksdj ckn rdehy nkf[ky n¶rj gksA** 4. Mr. Kailash Khatri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant, attacking the order impugned, contended that the defendant has clearly taken stand that they are not the owner of the subject property and as such they have no concern with the same. He further contended that in wake of assertion of the defendant, the learned Trial Court was not justified in binding the defendant by way of the order impugned. He invited attention of the Court that immediately after passing of the injunction order, the plaintiff has withdrawn his another application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein he had sought impleadment of the original owner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned. 6. He invited attention of the Court that immediately after passing of the injunction order, the plaintiff has withdrawn his another application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein he had sought impleadment of the original owner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned. 6. A look at the order impugned shows that the appellate Court has protected the right of the plaintiff only against any unlawful action taken by the defendant. The order under consideration is perfectly just and proper in the facts of the present case. Merely because the petitioner/defendant asserts that he is not the owner of the property, he cannot challenge an otherwise justified order dated 10.05.2017, which has been passed by the appellate Court for protecting the right of the plaintiff/tenant, till disposal of the suit. 7. Apprehension of the Mr. Kailash Khatri that if the original owner ejects the plaintiff, he would be unnecessarily dragged in proceedings for contempt, though appears to be unfounded, however, cannot be considered at this stage. 8. In view of above, the order dated 10.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Suratgarh calls for no interference by this Court and writ petition against it, is thus, dismissed.