Hon'ble Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Shesh Kumar learned counsel for the defendant petitioners and Sri Kshitij Shailendra who has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 has been described as proforma defendant respondent and therefore no notice is required to be issued to him.
(2.) Since the writ petition has been filed along with all the relevant documents as annexures there to and the matter has been heard at quite some length hence is being decided at this stage itself without requiring the plaintiff respondent to file counter affidavit.
(3.) According to learned counsel for the defendant petitioners the plaintiff respondent filed a Suit No.194 of 2006 before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bareilly. Along with the Suit the plaintiff respondent filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of temporary injunction. After noticing the defendant petitioners the said injunction application was decided by the Trial Court rejecting the same by recording a specific finding that the plaintiff respondent was not found in possession over the land in question,he has not been able to make out a prima facie case, the balance of convenience was not in his favour and there was no irreparable loss to the plaintiff respondent. Feeling aggrieved the plaintiff respondent filed a Misc. Appeal No. 44 of 2009 which has been decided by the impugned order dated 1.5.2010 by the Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Bareilly. According to learned counsel the appellate Court has allowed the appeal and granted an injunction to the plaintiff respondent without setting aside the findings on possession recorded by the Trial Court.;