JUDGMENT P.K. Lohra, J. - Appellants, who were arrayed as non-applicants in a petition for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC have preferred this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC to challenge order dated 27th of May, 2019, passed by Judge, Family Court, Pratapgarh (for short, 'learned Court below'). The learned Court below, by the order impugned, accepted application of the respondent No.1 & 2-applicants for temporary injunction. 2. The facts apposite for the purpose of this appeal are that at the threshold one Keshu Ram filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Smt. Jamna, inter-alia, claiming the reliefs that he may be declared owner of the properties mentioned in the suit and requisite entries made in the name of Smt. Jamna on the strength of Will dated 28th of March, 2007 be declared as null and void. During pendency of the suit, Keshu Ram died and his legal heir respondent No.3 was brought on record. Being close relative, good senses prevailed on the parties as both of them were aunt and nephew, and therefore, the dispute was amicably settled by way of compromise on 4th of October, 2018. The compromise eventually led to decreeing of the suit on 6th of October, 2018. Later on, respondent No.1 & 2 claiming to be grand-daughters of Late Shri Keshu Ram plaintiff, preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 7 & 13 CPC along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the application, it is inter-alia averred that in the application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, after death of Keshu Ram, notices were issued to them but they were served on mother as they were residing at their mother-in-laws' house. In want of knowledge, both the respondents could not appear before the learned Court below and respondent No.3 Bherulal entered into compromise with Smt. Jamna. It is further averred that the compromise was entered into by taking advantage of illiteracy of Smt. Jamna, who was unaware about surviving legal heirs of Keshu Ram, i.e. both respondents No.1 & 2. After passing of decree, third respondent transferred the property by a registered instrument in favour of appellants by accepting huge amount of consideration. It is further averred that appellants have demolished the existing structure and now raising construction over the disputed land. After passing of decree, third respondent transferred the property by a registered instrument in favour of appellants by accepting huge amount of consideration. It is further averred that appellants have demolished the existing structure and now raising construction over the disputed land. Besides filing application under Order 9 Rule 7, 13 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, on behalf of respondent No.1 & 2 an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is also filed for impleading appellants as party to the suit. That apart, respondent No.1 & 2 also claimed temporary injunction against the appellants. 3. Although learned trial Court accepted application of the respondent No.1 & 2 under Order 9 Rule 7 & 13 CPC as well as under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and set aside exparte decree but their application for impleadment of appellants remain undecided. However, pending consideration the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the learned trial Court also heard arguments on application for grant of temporary injunction filed by respondent No.1 & 2 and by the impugned order granted injunction in their favour directing the appellants to maintain status quo regarding the suit property. 4. The grievance of the appellants is that they were not party to the suit and inspite of that learned Court below has granted indulgence to respondent No.1 & 2 on their prayer for grant of temporary injunction. It is further submitted by learned counsel that when application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for their impleadment was pending, it was not expected of the learned trial Court to grant any injunction order. Learned counsel has further argued that temporary injunction can only be granted against an individual who is party to the main suit. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Bhagwat Singh Vs. Ms Basanti Manihar & Ors., (2013) WLC(Raj) 300 . 5. Per contra Mr. Jain submits that impugned order warrants no interference because the learned Court below exercised its discretion in exercise of inherent powers. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance on following judgments: Manohar Lal Chopra Vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, (1962) AIR SC 527 RSEB Vs. Jai Singh,1996 AIR Raj. 1410 Gopal Dass Vs. Ram Chandra, (1978) RajLW 257 (Raj) Ishar Mal Vs. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance on following judgments: Manohar Lal Chopra Vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, (1962) AIR SC 527 RSEB Vs. Jai Singh,1996 AIR Raj. 1410 Gopal Dass Vs. Ram Chandra, (1978) RajLW 257 (Raj) Ishar Mal Vs. Babu Lal, (1976) RajLW 142 (Raj) Ved Prakash Mukhariya Vs. Balmukund Sharma & Ors., (2012) AIR M.P. 11 Vareed Jacob Vs. Sosamma Geevarghese & Ors., (2004) AIRSCW 4269 Smt. Shakunthalamma & Ors. Smt. Kanthamma & Ors., (2015) AIR Karnataka 13 K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 3 RajLW 2457 (SC) 6. I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar, perused impugned order as well as materials available on record. 7. Well it is true that in appropriate cases a civil court can grant injunction even by exercising inherent powers but then against whom temporary injunction can be granted is a question of great significance. If someone is not a party to the litigation, it may not be possible to pass any restraining order against that individual inasmuch as that would be against the basic tenets of law besides in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 8. Undeniably, appellants were not party to the litigation and this fact is also fortified from the action of the respondents inasmuch as at their behest an endavour was made to implead them as party to the litigation by laying application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. It is also not in dispute that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was pending uptil passing of the impugned order. The learned Court below has, therefore, in my considered opinion, has acted perversely in exercise of its jurisdiction and the impugned order passed by it is dehors the sound legal principles governing the province of grant of temporary injunction. 9. In this view of the matter, the instant appeal is allowed, impugned order passed by the learned Court below cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed and set aside and the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed by the respondents is rejected. However, before parting, it may be observed that the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to consider prayer of the respondents afresh after deciding application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, if occasion so arises.