(1.) Arguments heard. This revision is directed against the order dated 5-12-2011 passed by First Civil Judge, Class I, Katni in MJC No. 02/2012, an application under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC'), whereby plea of jurisdiction raised by the petitioners by way of an application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, was rejected.
(2.) The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from encroaching upon the suit house together with an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code for temporary injunction,' The application was dismissed vide order dated 26-6-2010 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class II, Katni in Civil Suit No. 69-A/10. The respondent preferred an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 17-3-2011 passed by III Addl. District Judge (FTC), Katni in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 24/10 and, accordingly, the petitioners were restrained from interfering with the possession of the respondent on the suit house.
(3.) A bare perusal of the application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151 of the Code would reveal that objection to jurisdiction was based on the fact that the injunction order, said to have been disobeyed, was passed by the Appellate Court and it was overruled by learned Civil Judge for the reason that "the Court granting injunction" means the Court, which was hearing the suit or the Court to which it has been transferred for trial.