was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn so the protection afforded by the order of temporary injunction would subsume with the dismissal of the main suit. Thirdly, in the deposition and cross- examination of PW-7, there was no admission that he had informed respondents 1-2 about the order of temporary injunction in favour of the appellant. Although respondents 3 and 4 refused to depose in the witness box, yet respondents 1-2 had both appeared as a witness and from their deposition, it cannot be7 inferred that they were aware of the injunction order. Thus, the High Court concluded that respondents 1-2 were bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration and deserved protection under Section 41 of the Act of 1882. The relevant observations of the High Court are reproduced below: “In the suit for permanent injunction, land measuring 16 kanals out of khewat No. 322 khata No. 435 total measuring 86 kanal 14 marlas was the subject matter. Neither Harvinder Singh nor the present appellants were