JUDGMENT : 1. This is defendant’s petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order passed by learned trial Court on 23.08.2017 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 and the subsequent order dated 11.05.2018 passed by learned trial Court under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. The order passed by Appellate Court in Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) has also been challenged in this petition. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent nos. 1 to 4 filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner and some other persons with the contention that they have constructed five shops over the family property, which they inherited from Sri Ratan Lal (father-in-law of respondent no. 1 and grand-father of respondent nos. 2 to 4). 3. On 31.05.2017, learned trial Court issued notice on the suit as well as the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiffs. Upon service of notice, petitioner appeared through counsel on 23.08.2017 and instead of seeking time for filing objection to the temporary injunction application, he moved an application seeking adjournment. Learned trial Court, therefore, granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs (respondent nos. 1 to 4 herein) vide order dated 23.08.2017. Petitioner, thereafter, moved an application under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C., which was rejected by learned trial Court vide order dated 11.05.2018. Thereafter, petitioner filed a Misc. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) C.P.C., which too has been dismissed by learned IVth Additional District Judge vide judgment and order dated 15.12.2018. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. is extracted below for ready reference: “Order 39 Rule 4. Thereafter, petitioner filed a Misc. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) C.P.C., which too has been dismissed by learned IVth Additional District Judge vide judgment and order dated 15.12.2018. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. is extracted below for ready reference: “Order 39 Rule 4. Order for injunction may be discharged, varied or set aside- Any order for an injunction may be discharged, or varied, or set aside by the Court, on an application thereto by any party dissatisfied with such order: Provided that if in an application for temporary injunction or in any affidavit supporting such application a party has knowingly made a false or misleading statement in relation to a material particular and the injunction was granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall vacate the injunction unless, for reasons to be recorded, it considers that it is not necessary so to do in the interests of justice: Provided further that where an order for injunction has been passed after giving to a party an opportunity of being heard, the order shall not be discharged, varied or set aside on the application of that party except where such discharge, variation or setting aside has been necessitated by a change in the circumstances, or unless the Court is satisfied that the order has caused undue hardship to that party.” 6. From the aforesaid conspectus of facts, it is apparent that petitioner had sufficient opportunity to file objection to the temporary injunction application on or before 23.08.2017, but, he did not avail that opportunity. He could have sought further time on the date fixed i.e., 23.08.2017 but he simply sought adjournment. Therefore, in view of second proviso to Order 39 Rule 4, the temporary injunction granted by learned trial Court on 23.08.2017 could not have discharged, varied or set-aside, as petitioner was given opportunity of hearing, more so, when there was no change in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the orders passed by learned trial Court did not suffer from any illegality and learned Fourth Additional District Judge was therefore justified in dismissing the appeal filed by petitioner. 7. This Court does not find any irregularity or infirmity whatsoever in the orders passed by learned Courts below. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. 7. This Court does not find any irregularity or infirmity whatsoever in the orders passed by learned Courts below. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that the property in question is a joint family property and a partition suit is also pending between the parties before learned Assistant Collector, First Class, Dehradun, therefore the suit filed by respondent nos. 1 to 4 is not maintainable before a Civil Court. Petitioner shall be at liberty to raise the question of maintainability of injunction suit before the Court below and the same shall be considered, in accordance with law.