ORDER 1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned ex-parte ad-interim injunction order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.09, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, in Temporary Injunction Application No.85/2019 titling as Vinod Kumar Vs. Smt Gomti Devi Agarwal, whereby defendants-respondents were directed not to sell the property in favour of the third party and not to alter the actual position of the property, in question. 2. Facts of the present case in nut-shell are that the respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit for partition and declaration. The learned trial Court had passed impugned ex-parte ad-interim injunction order dated 03.12.2019, by which it was directed for all the defendants-respondents, that the property, in question could not be sold out in favour of third party as well as the actual position of the property, in question would not be altered. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the impugned order and the material made available on record. 4. The suit is pending before the learned trial Court in which the trial Court passed impugned ex-parte ad-interim injunction order. The application filed by the plaintiff for temporary injunction is still pending before the learned trial Court for final adjudication. 5. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs. S. Challappan & Others, reported in A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 3032, observed that any interim order passed by a Civil Court is appeal able in terms of Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. A party aggrieved with an ad-interim injunction order can either move the Appellate Court or approach the same Court, which has passed the same by way of an application under Order 39 Rule 3-A C.P.C. 6. In view of above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 8. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.