ORDER : (Birendra Kumar, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. During pendency of a civil suit for declaration, possession and injunction, the learned trial Court granted ad-interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. The said order was set aside by this Court on an appeal. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. before the trial Judge for discharge/vary or setting aside the order of injunction on the grounds stated in the petition. The prayer was refused by the impugned order. 3. The point for consideration herein is “whether application under Order 39 Rule 4 would be maintainable before the trial Judge to undo the effect of the order of the Appellate Court?.” 4. A brief background leading to this civil misc. appeal is that the appellant had filed Civil Original Suit No.34/1985 praying therein for a decree of declaration, injunction and possession in respect of all the four mosques (masjid) referred in the plaint. 5. Before filing of the suit, a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was going on for the same four mosques. 6. Misc. Application No.40/1985 was filed by the plaintiff-appellant for an order of ad-interim injunction. Another application was filed for appointment of Receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 C.P.C. In the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., the Additional District Magistrate, Udaipur City attached Moiyadpura mosque under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 30.05.1984 and appointed the Station House Officer as Receiver. 7. While dealing with application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C., the learned District Judge vide order Dated 14.11.1991 appointed Receiver in respect of Vazirpura mosque, Rasoolpura mosque and Khanpura mosque to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 8. In the matter of Moiyadpura mosque which was already attached under Section 146 Cr.P.C., the trial Court while disposing of application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. directed that neither party shall carry out any repair work without permission of the Court. 9. The order was challenged before this Court in Civil Misc. Appeal Nos.351/1991 and 352/1991. The appeals were disposed of vide order dated 20.01.1992 with following conclusions and directions : “19. 9. The order was challenged before this Court in Civil Misc. Appeal Nos.351/1991 and 352/1991. The appeals were disposed of vide order dated 20.01.1992 with following conclusions and directions : “19. In view of this, the findings so arrived at by the learned District Judge are not based on good reasons and deserve to be set aside and the application filed under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and Order 40 Rule 1 are dismissed and accordingly I allow this appeal (351/91) and set aside the order of the learned Dist. Judge/Udaipur dt. 14.11.91, granting interim relief in appointing receiver for three disputed mosques viz. Vazirpura, Khanpura and Rasoolpura. However, the appellants will not change the original structure of these mosques. 20. So far as the other appeal No.352/91 is concerned, the impugned order dt. 14.11.91 of the learned Dist. Judge is modified to the extent that the receiver appointed in proceedings Under Section 145 Cr.PC (case No.365/84) shall continue. The receiver will be free to get the repaire done without altering the original structure of the Boiyatpura mosque, so that no party may face any difficulty in offering their prayer. He will submit his report within four months as per the order of the learned Dist. Judge. Consequently, this appeal stands disposed of. The parties are left to bear their own costs.” 10. Thus, by aforesaid modification the Receiver was allowed free hand to get the repairing done without alteration in the original structure of the Moiyadpura mosque. 11. The appellant filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. for a direction/permission to allow demolition and reconstruction of Moiyadpura mosque as it is already dilapidated. 12. By the impugned order dated 09.09.2024 passed in Misc. Case No.129/2023 on the application under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C., the trial Court was of the view that the application was not maintainable before it as the injunction order passed by the Court has merged with the order of the High Court in the appeal above stated, therefore, such application would be maintainable before the High Court itself. Now correctness of the said order is under challenge in this appeal. 13. Order 39 Rule 4 reads as follows : “4. Order for injunction may be discharged, varied or set aside. Now correctness of the said order is under challenge in this appeal. 13. Order 39 Rule 4 reads as follows : “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 application made 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.]” 14. Mr. Ravi Bhansali, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not seeking for modification or variation in the order of the High Court, rather has sought for variation in the order passed by the learned trial Court under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. Prayer is for permission for demolition of the structure of the referred mosque and for reconstruction of the same. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 31.01.1994 passed in Misc. Petition No.245/1990 - Ravi Shanker and Ors. Vs. 7th Additional District Judge and Ors. 16. In Ravi Shanker’s case (supra), the suit was for injunction and protection of possession based on title. The plaintiff had claimed that suit property was purchased by the plaintiff through registered sale deed dated 12.11.1948. The vendor of the plaintiff had got the suit property through a deed of gift dated 17.03.1947. The case of the defendant was that the suit land was not part and parcel of the purchased property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had claimed that suit property was purchased by the plaintiff through registered sale deed dated 12.11.1948. The vendor of the plaintiff had got the suit property through a deed of gift dated 17.03.1947. The case of the defendant was that the suit land was not part and parcel of the purchased property of the plaintiff. Rather, it was land of the respondent-State and was given to the Capital Project Authority by the State Government for construction of a VIP Guest House thereon. On 05.07.1989, the trial Judge rejected the prayer for ad-interim injunction. The refusal was challenged in appeal and the Appellate Court (District Judge) allowed the appeal and remitted back for reconsideration of the prayer for ad-interim injunction after getting a demarcation report to identify the respective area of the parties. The demarcation report was received that there was no encroachment. In the meantime, the defendant filed an application that the claim of the plaintiff is based on a forged sale deed and claim of the vendor of the plaintiff was also based on forged gift deed. Therefore, no injunction should be granted. 17. In Ravi Shanker’s case (supra) the Appellate Court had not made any observation on the merit of the case. Before the High Court there was difference of opinion between two Judges of the Division Bench on whether application under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. would be maintainable before the trial Judge after setting aside the order of injunction made by the Appellate Court. The matter went to the third Hon’ble Judge. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on Para 14 of the judgment, wherein opinion of the third Judge of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court is recorded as follows : “14. When the appellate court passes an order of injunction while finally disposing of the appeal before it, the order stands substituted in place of the order of the trial Court. The order is passed not for the purpose of appeal, nor to remain operative during the hearing of the appeal; it is an order passed for the purpose of the suit and to terminate with the decision of the suit. The order is passed not for the purpose of appeal, nor to remain operative during the hearing of the appeal; it is an order passed for the purpose of the suit and to terminate with the decision of the suit. An application under Order 39, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code can appropriately be dealt with by the trial Court though the order of injunction sought to be discharged, varied of set aside be one passed by the appellate Court.” 19. Evidently, the case on hand is distinguishable for the reason that this Court had set aside the order of the trial Court under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. as well as order appointing receiver in the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and directed that the receiver will be free to get repair of the mosque done without altering the original structure of the Moiyadpura mosque. Now, the issue is whether the trial Court in exercise of power under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. can permit demolition and restructure of Moiyadpura mosque in teeth of order of this Court prohibiting any alteration in original structure of the said mosque. Evidently, the answer would be ‘no’ for the reason that if the trial Court is allowed to vary or otherwise interfere with the specific direction of the Appellate Court, it would create chaos and uncertainty as well as judicial impropriety. Moreover, Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. does not permits variation of earlier order beyond grounds of interference mentioned in Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. 20. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity with the order of the learned trial Court. 21. The appellant may take steps according to law. 22. Accordingly, the instant civil misc. appeal stands dismissed being devoid of merit.