K.P. Singh, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by the order of the trial court dated 31.5.90 in Suit No. 154 of 1990 the appellants have approached this Court through the above mentioned appeal and have contended that the order of the trial Court directing the status-quo to continue is bad in law and liable to be set-aside. According to the learned counsel for the appellants the above direction would debar the Collector from deciding any question raised on behalf of the appellants about its right of fishing and seeking settlement regarding that right. We are not satisfied with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in this regard. However, to meet the ends of justice we make it clear that if the appellants approach the Collector for any relief regarding settlement of fishery right it would be open to the Collector to deal with the claims of the parties before him without being influenced by the observations of the trial Court in its order dated 31.5.90.
(2.) Moreover, on a perusal of the impugned order indicates that the order of the status-quo was operative till 13.7.90 and the aforesaid date has expired, therefore, we think that this appeal has no legs to stand on and deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the trial court the plaintiff/applicant has preferred Civil revision No. 557 of 1990 under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure Matsya Jeevi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others. The main grievance of the applicant before us is that the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 in this revision petition who had filed the connected appeal which has been dismissed today are not necessary parties to the suit filed by the plaintiff, therefore, the impleadment by the Opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 in the revision petition is wholly unjustified and the trial court has acted illegally with material irregularity and without jurisdiction in impleading the aforesaid opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 in the present writ petition.;