ORDER 1. Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging order dated 13.12.2024 (Annexure-P/4) passed by 22nd Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in RCS No.291/2023. 2. Counsel appearing for the petitioners took the Court through pleadings made in application. It is submitted that in application, provision mentioned is under Order 41 rule 5 CPC, though while considering the application, only provision is not material but pleadings are also to be seen. In proceeding also, prayer is only made for stay of judgment and decree. It is submitted that said application was treated to be application under Order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC and injunction directing parties to maintain status-quo was granted. Counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that the Court could not pass an order of injunction on an application under Order 41 rule 5 CPC. Nature of proceedings and what is to be seen by Court for passing an order are different. Therefore, order suffers from jurisdictional error. 3. Counsel appearing for respondents submitted that application was infact for grant of injunction. Court may not be misled by the provision, which has been mentioned. It is further submitted that trial Court is at liberty to treat the said application as an application under Order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC and pass orders on merits of case. 4. Heard learned counsel for parties. 5. Requirement for considering the application under Order 41 rule 5 CPC and application under Order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC is different. Evidence is to be considered and affidavit of parties is to be seen. Three golden rules are to be considered while considering the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. However considering an application under Order 41 rule 5 CPC, Court has to see illegalities or errors which has been committed in judgment and decree or substantial loss to a party for staying the same. Provisions for granting stay and injunctions are also different in Code of Civil Procedure. 6. In view of same, trial Court has committed a jurisdictional error in passing an injunction order on application for stay. Miscellaneous petition is allowed. Order dated 13.12.2024 (Annexure-P/4) is set-aside. 7. Petitioners are at liberty to oppose the application on ground that same is listed for final hearing and stage of granting injunction at this later stage is already closed. 8. Miscellaneous petition is allowed. Order dated 13.12.2024 (Annexure-P/4) is set-aside. 7. Petitioners are at liberty to oppose the application on ground that same is listed for final hearing and stage of granting injunction at this later stage is already closed. 8. Trial Court is at liberty to consider the application on arguments and submissions of parties. 9. With aforesaid, Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and disposed of. 10. Certified copy as per rules.