was dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. Moreover, it is submitted that there was no prayer in the suit for permanent injunction and therefore, the petitioners did not enjoyed any temporary injunction till the suit was dismissed by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and, as such, this Court out not to change the status of the suit land by passing order of ad-interim injunction under Section 94(c) CPC, when the prayer for injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, made vide I.A.(C) 1632/2016 was dismissed. It is submitted that an injunction at this stage was not only amount to prejudging the appeal, but an order of injunction ought not to be granted under Section 94(c) CPC as such a similar prayer for injunction was already refused under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. By referring to the case of Manoharlal (supra), it is submitted that the nature of injunction which was prayed for was contemplated under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC and, as such, this was not a case where circumstances covered by Order XXXIX Rule 1 was not available, as such, the provisions of Section 151 CPC could not be invoked in the absence of prayer for permanent injunction in the plaint. In respect of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the case of Haridas Das Vs. Usha Rani Banik (Smt.) & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 78 and Ramji Gupta Vs. Gopi Krishan Agarwal, (2013) 9 SCC 438. It is submitted that the counsel for the petitioners had to make elaborate argument in his attempt to show that there was error apparent on the face of record, but as no specific grounds have urged to show that the order dated 19.09.2017 was liable to be interfered as there was an error apparent on the face of record. Therefore, it is submitted that the said order was not liable to be reviewed at a mere asking of the petitioners.
