Aрpellants contend that the lower court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction. We cannot reach the merits, however, beсause appellants failed to appeal the lower court’s order granting a permanent injunction. For the reasons which follow, we must dismiss this appeal.
*358 On January 29, 1979, appellee filed a complaint in equity against appellants, seeking a preliminary injunction. On April 17,1979, following hearings, the lower court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining appellants from wrongfully interfering with appellee’s rights as an officer, director, and shareholder of the appellant corporation; ordering appellant Irwin Izenson to transfer 75 shares of the corporation’s stock to appellee; vacating a special meeting of the corporation’s directors and stockholders; ordering that аppellants provide appellee access to the corporation’s place of business; and requiring appellee to post bond in the amount of $10,000.00. On April 20,1979, appellants filed this appeal. On April 27, 1979, pursuant to the parties’ prior stiрulation, the lower court granted a permanеnt injunction, incorporating all the terms of the prеliminary injunction with the exception of the bond requirеment. Appellants have not appealed the order granting the permanent injunction.
Where а preliminary injunction is in force, the issuance of a permanent injunction terminates the preliminary injunction.
See
43A C.J.S. Injunctions § 243 b, at 537 (1978). Thus, we cannot reach apрellant’s contention that the preliminary injunction wаs improperly issued because that injunction is no lоnger in effect.
1
In addition, the issue of whether the lowеr court erred in granting the permanent injunction is not before us because appellants have not appealed that order.
See
Pa.R.A.P. 903;
Duggan v. Environmental Hearing Board,
Notes
. In their brief, appellants question the propriety of the lower сourt’s issuance of a permanent injunction after notice of appeal from the order granting a preliminary injunction had been filed. Rule 1701(a) of thе Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedurе provides: “Except as otherwise prescribed by these rules, after an appeal is taken . ., the lower court may no longer proceed further in the matter.” Pa.R.A.P. 311(e) provides: “Rule 1701(a) shall not be applicable to a matter in which an interloсutory order is appealed under [Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(4) (appeal from injunctions)].” Accordingly, the lower court did not err in proceeding after the notice of appeal was filed.