Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "that a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued by which the opposite party no. 1 may kindly be commended by this Hon'ble Court to hear and decide the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. filed by the petitioner and Regular Suit No. 587 of 2010 in re: Amir Alam Khan v. Lucknow Development Authority and another."
(2.) In the instant case, the sole dispute is pertaining to the ownership and possession of property bearing Khasra No. 380 area 3 bigha 18 biswa situated at village Shekhapur, Lucknow. It is alleged that the petitioner has received the property in question after the death of his father in the year 1993 by virtue of registered will dated 02.03.1990. The petitioner initially had filed a Regular Suit No. 475 of 1995 for permanent injunction against the Lucknow Development Authority and the opposite party no. 3, where the Court vide order dated 10.09.2001 ordered that the status-quo should be maintained but refused to pass an interim order that the opposite parties should not interfere in the possession of the petitioner over the property in question. When the court refused to grant an injunction, then the petitioner filed an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 before this Hon'ble Court bearing FAFO No. 150 of 2006, but the same was dismissed on 12.04.2006. Not being satisfied, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition no. 8661 of 2006 before the Hon'ble Apex Court who vide its order dated 12.03.2007 has observed without granting any interim order that the appellate court should dispose of the Original Suit No. 475 of 1995 within a period of nine months. However, the status-quo was maintained.
(3.) As per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Suit No. 475 of 1995 was decided on merit and it was dismissed on 29.08.2009. Not being satisfied, the petitioner has filed first appeal before this Hon'ble Court bearing First Appeal No. 97 of 2009 where the interim order was passed that: "any construction made meanwhile will be subject to the result of the appeal and that if some constructions are made meanwhile and the appeal is allowed then, no one will be heard to say that equity has intervened and the construction may not be directed to be demolished.";