Sushil Harkauli and Vikram Nath, JJ. - (1.) WE have heard learned Counsel for both the sides. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the injunction order for violation of which the impugned order of attachment under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A, C.P.C., has been passed was an order without jurisdiction. The question of jurisdiction has been examined by the Court below which has recorded a specific finding that Debt Recovery Tribunal was constituted in the year 1998 while the injunction order was passed in the year 1996 and, therefore, when the injunction order was passed in 1996 the Civil Court had jurisdiction over the matter.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has further attempted to show by advancing his argument that the injunction order should not have been passed. This appeal is not against the order of the injunction and we repeatedly pointed out to the learned Counsel for the appellant that as such this Court is not examining the merits of the injunction order. Whether the injunction order was permissible is a matter to be considered in the appeal questioning the order of interim injunction. In appeal against the order of attachment under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A, C.P.C., this Court will only examine whether the injunction order has or has not been violated. The correctness of the injunction order is not within the competence of this Court while hearing the appeal against an order passed under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A, C.P.C. Accordingly, the contention of the appellant is beyond the domain of this Court while hearing this appeal.
(3.) THEREFORE , without prejudice to the rights of the appellant to challenge the order of injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A, C.P.C. we decline to interfere in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.;