Order : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed while challenging the order dated 02.09.2020 passed by District Judge, Bhilwara, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of CPC challenging the order dated 20.08.2020 passed by the learned trial, Bhilwara, in a suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff has been dismissed. By the said order, the trial court granted an ad-interim temporary injunction while allowing the defendant to proceed with construction, subject to the out- come of the temporary injunction application. Additionally, liberty was granted to the defendant to alienate the property, with such transactions remaining subject to the final decision on the temporary injunction. 2. Brief facts of the case stated by the petitioner in the writ petition are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction and cancellation of the power of attorney dated 05.11.1997 executed in favor of defendant no.1, as well as the sale deeds dated 10.11.1997 and 15.11.2010 executed in favor of defendant no.2 and 3, respectively. The agricultural land in question, situated at Bhilwara, was allotted to the plaintiff, who remained its owner and possessor. Since the plaintiff was often out of town, defendant no.1 managed the property, but after retirement, the plaintiff resumed its care and resided jointly at Nagar, Bhilwara. Following a brain stroke suffered by the plaintiff, his daughters, Sapna and Neha, began overseeing the property. When they attempted to raise fencing, they were threatened by unknown persons, leading them to inquire at the Sub-Registrar’s office, where they discovered that defendant no.1 had allegedly executed a forged power of attorney on 05.11.1997, based on which a sale deed dated 10.11.1997 was executed, eventually leading to the sale of the property to defendant no.3 through a sale deed dated 15.11.2010. The petitioner also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking a temporary injunction to maintain the status quo over the property. On 20.08.2020, the trial court granted time to defendants no.1 and 2 to file their reply to the injunction application while granting an ad-interim injunction and observed that if defendant No.3 raises construction, same shall be subject to final order. On 20.08.2020, the trial court granted time to defendants no.1 and 2 to file their reply to the injunction application while granting an ad-interim injunction and observed that if defendant No.3 raises construction, same shall be subject to final order. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a civil miscellaneous appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, contending that after 23 years of no construction on the property, the defendants were now permitted to construct without ascertaining the property’s existing status. The petitioner also submitted a photocopy to demonstrate the absence of any boundary wall or fencing at the site. However, on 02.09.2020, the appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that only a final order under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC and as such, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the or- ders dated 02.09.2020 (Annex.10) passed by the learned District Judge, Bhilwara, and 20.08.2020 (Annex.7) passed by the learned trial court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 02.09.2020 (Annex.10) has been passed by the learned Appellate Court in gross violation of Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC. He submits that an appeal lies to the impugned order dated 20.08.2020 (Annex.7) by which the ad-interim order was granted while directing that the respondent Nos.1 & 3 can raise construction on the suit property. He submits that the petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved of the same has preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Court and the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 02.09.2020 (Annex.10) rejected the appeal while holding that the appeal is not maintainable in light of the provisions and accordingly the appeal was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute that under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC, an appeal is maintainable against the impugned order dated 20.08.2020 (Annex.7). 5. Thus, having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 02.09.2020 (Annex.10) has been passed while not taking into consideration the relevant provision i.e. Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC. The relevant provision is reproduced as under:- “1. Appeal from orders An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of section 104, namely :-- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (r) an order under rule 1, rule 2 [rule 2A], rule 4 or rule 10 of Order XXXIX;” 6. The relevant provision is reproduced as under:- “1. Appeal from orders An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of section 104, namely :-- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (r) an order under rule 1, rule 2 [rule 2A], rule 4 or rule 10 of Order XXXIX;” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed Hon’ble Apex Court in A. Venkatasub biah Naidu vs S. Chellappan And Ors.: 2007 (7) SCC 695 and the relevant part is reproduced as under:- “It is the acknowledged position of law that no party can be forced to suffer for the inaction of the court or its omissions to act according to the procedure established by law. Under the normal circumstances the aggrieved party can prefer an appeal only against an order passed under Rules 1,2, 2A, 4 or 10 of Order 39 of the Code in terms of Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code. He cannot approach the appellate or revisional court during the pendency of the application for grant or vacation of temporary injunction. In such circumstances the party who does not get justice due to the inaction of the court in following the mandate of law must have a remedy. So we are of the view that in a case where the mandate of Order 39 Rule 3A of the Code is flouted, the aggrieved party, shall be entitled to the right of appeal notwithstanding the pendency of the application for grant or vacation of a temporary injunction, against the order remaining in force. In such appeal, if preferred, the appellate court shall be obliged to entertain the appeal and further to take note of the omission of the subordinate court in complying with the provisions of Rule 3A. In appropriate cases the appellate court, apart from granting or vacating or modifying the order of such injunction, may suggest suitable action against the erring judicial officer, including recommendation to take steps for making ad- verse entry in his ACRs. Failure to decide the application or vacate the ex-parte temporary injunction shall, for the purposes of the appeal, be deemed to be the final order passed on the application for temporary injunction, on the date of expiry of thirty days mentioned in the Rule. Failure to decide the application or vacate the ex-parte temporary injunction shall, for the purposes of the appeal, be deemed to be the final order passed on the application for temporary injunction, on the date of expiry of thirty days mentioned in the Rule. Now what remains is the question whether the High Court should have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution when the party had two other alternative remedies. Though no hurdle can be put against the exercise of the constitutional powers of the High Court it is a well recognized principle which gained judicial recognition that the High Court should direct the party to avail himself of such remedies one or the other before he resorts to a constitutional remedy. Learned single judge need not have entertained the revision petition at all and the party affected by the interim ex parte order should have been directed to resort to one of the other remedies. Be that as it may, now it is idle to embark on that aspect as the High Court had chosen to entertain the revision petition. In the light of the direction issued by the High Court that the trial court should pass final orders on the interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff on merits and in accordance with law, we may further add that till such orders are passed by the trial court, status-quo as it prevailed immediately preceding the institution of the suit would be maintained by the parties. This appeal is disposed of with the above observations and directions.” 7. Thus, in view of the fact that the petitioner can approach the Appellate Court during the pendency of the application for grant of ad-interim stay, the writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 02.09.2020 (Annex.10) is quashed and set aside, the learned trial court is directed to decide the pending application under XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 filed in Suit No.81/2020 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.