- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the a parties.
(2.) The petitioner plaintiffs have challenged the order of the District Judge dated 12.04.2006 whereby their appeal preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) C.P.C. has been dismissed as not maintainable.
(3.) The plaintiffs filed a suit before the trial court being original suit No. 165 of 2006 in which they also moved an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. praying for grant of temporary injunction. The trial court vide its order (Annexure No.7) dated 01-04-2006 instead of passing an order granting exparte injunction, directed issuance of notice to the respondents-defendants fixing a date inviting objections/ counter affidavit from them and also fixed a date for disposal of the said temporary injunction application. Against this order of the trial court the petitioners preferred an appeal before the District Judge concerned which has been dismissed as not maintainable by the impugned order.;