IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 123 CR-8000-2025 Date of Decision: 02.09.2026 Sarita Gupta ...Petitioner Versus Neetu alias Nisha and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present:- Ms. Aayushi, Advocate for Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VIKAS SURI, J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra, whereby the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) filed by the plaintiff-petitioner has been disposed of by restraining defendant No.1 from raising any further construction over the suit property till partition thereof, and further clarifying that any construction which has been raised thereupon shall remain subject to the partition proceedings. 2. On a query posed at the preliminary hearing, it is conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not assailed the impugned order by way of appeal before the Appellate Court, which remedy is available to her under Order 43 CPC. HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.02 19:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-8000-2025 (2) 3. Undisputedly, the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is available to the petitioner only when no appeal lies against the impugned order. 4. A coordinate Bench of this Court in a recent decision in Vijay Pal and others vs. Smt. Lali Devi and others, 2024(2) PLR 444, has held that whether an order for interim injunction is passed ex parte on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, or is so passed after hearing both the parties, an appeal is maintainable in either case against such an order. In the said case, the relief of ad interim injunction was declined after hearing the parties and in such circumstances, it was held that an appeal is maintainable under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads thus:- “5.2 In the case in hand, learned trial Court after hearing both the sides passed a detailed order dated 22.10.2018 and held that there was no ground to grant ad interim injunction and request of the plaintiff in that regard was declined. The learned trial Court passed speaking order, after hearing both the parties and after applying mind whether plaintiff is entitled for ad interim injunction or not. Whether the order is passed ex-parte on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC or is passed after hearing the parties, then appeal is maintainable. The only requirement is that the order is passed under Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39 CPC. Any order granting or declining an injunction cannot be passed under Rule 3 of Order 39 independently of Rule 1 or 2 CPC. If the Court just give notice of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC to the other party without expressing any opinion declining the ad interim injunction, then appeal is not maintainable. In the case in hand, order declining ad interim injunction was passed after hearing the parties, so appeal against said order is maintainable under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.02 19:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-8000-2025 (3) CPC.” 5. Faced with the above, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present petition with liberty to avail alternative remedy against the order dated 13.03.2025 (Annexure P-1), in accordance with law. 6. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid. ( VIKAS SURI ) September 02, 2026 JUDGE harish Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.02 19:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment