Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.@mdashThe Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the orders dated 18-10-2011, 24-10-2011, 28-10-2011 and
29-10-2011 passed by the Principal District Judge, Anantnag, in a suit titled as Ali Mohammad Dar v. State & another, on the grounds taken in
the memo of appeal. The facts in brief are that plaintiff, respondent herein, filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the defendants, appellants
herein, along with two miscellaneous applications--One for grant of leave to file suit while dispensing with the requirement of serving notice in terms
of Section 80 of the CPC (for short, CPC), and another for grant of ad-interim relief in terms of Order 39 CPC.
2. Leave to file the suit came to be granted vide order dated 15-10-2011 and notice came to be issued in the suit as also in the application for
grant of ad-interim relief. The said order is not subject matter of challenge in the appeal in hand.
3. On 18-10-2011 defendants, appellants herein, appeared when respondent No. 2 was directed to deposit the amount in terms of the assessment
made by or before 21-10-2011. On 21-10-2011 learned counsel for appellants, defendants before the trial Court, sought two days time to
deposit the amount. When the Collector, Land Acquisition-defendant No. 2 failed to deposit the awarded amount, vide order dated 24-10-2011
he was directed to deposit the same within two days, failing which the amount was to be recovered along with interest from his personal pay. On
the next date learned counsel for defendants, appellants herein, appeared and stated at the Bar that the orders of the Court have been complied
with and 75% of the amount stood deposited in Account No. 6005/CD on 22-10-2011. Since the said amount was not disbursed to the plaintiff,
respondent herein, learned trial Court vide order dated 28-10-2011 directed for attachment of the account head of defendant No. 2 and directed
the Treasury Officer, Anantnag to deposit the amount in the Court after following codal formalities. Vide order dated 29-10-2011 the entire
account head of defendant No. 2 came to be seized with a direction to the Treasury Officer not to release any amount till the claim of the petitioner
is satisfied. Feeling aggrieved the defendants, appellants herein, have challenged all these orders, except the basic order dated 15-10-2011, by the
medium of appeal in hand.
4. On 24-10-2011 learned counsel for appellants undertook to deposit the amount within two days, which he failed to do so. Order dated 24-10-
2011 appears to have been passed in terms of Order 39, Rule 7 of CPC and not in terms of Order 39, Rules 1 to 4, CPC.
5. Now the question arises for consideration is as to whether the appeal is maintain-able and the orders under challenge are appealable.
6. Order 43 of CPC provides which orders are appealable. In terms of Order 43 Clause (r), orders passed under Order 39, Rules 1, 2, 2(a) and
4 are appealable. Thus, orders passed under Order 39, Rule 7 is not appealable. It is also apt to record herein that all these orders are interim,
have not been made absolute. The appellants also have not availed the appropriate remedy. In the given circumstances, the appeal is not
maintainable. The appellants, however, are at liberty to seek appropriate remedy, if advised to do so. The trial Court to decide the application for
grant of temporary injunction within two weeks from today. It is made clear that any observation made in this order shall not come in the way of
appellants while contesting the main suit or interim application before the trial Court.
Dismissed along with all CMPs.
