- (1.) We have heard Sri I.P.Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 to 4 and Sri R.N. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.5.
(2.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties No.2 to 5 that they ensure the peaceful possession of the petitioner at Plot No.541 (Old No.327) situated at village Ahirauli, Saloni, Pargna-Paschim Rath, Tehsil Milkipur, district-Faizabad. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties No.2 to 5 that they restrain to the opposite party Nos.6 to 22 that they not disturbed in the peaceful possession of the petitioner and not cut the trees, which are aged about 20-80 years old situated at Plot No.541 (Old No.327) situated at village Ahirauli Saloni Pargana Paschim Rath. Tehsil Milkipur, district Faizabad. (iii) Issue a writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, (iv) Allow the writ petition with cost in favour of the petitioner.
(3.) In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that the dispute relates to Gata No.541 (Old No.327) situated in village Ahirauli Saloni, Pargana-Paschim Rath, Tehsil Milkipur, district-Faizabad. On the said plot, old trees aged about 20-80 years and oldest bushes are situated. On 20.10.2007, the opposite party No.5 informed the petitioner that some persons of the village is going to allot the patta upon Gata No.541 and as such, petitioner filed a suit, which was numbered as Civil Suit No.700 of 2007 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sadar, Faizabad for permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Trial Court, after considering the application and objection rejected the petitioner application for temporary injunction by the order dated 16.04.2008 inter alia on the grounds that the petitioner has no prima facie case and no balance of convenience is in his favour and no irreparable loss is going to cause to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Faizabad and the District Judge, Faizabad, vide order dated 04.10.2008 while allowing the appeal partly set aside the order dated 16.04.2008 and further directed the Trial Court to dispose of the original case by 31.10.2008 and also directed the parties to maintain status quo with regards to the trees standing on land No.327.;