Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) Mandatory interim injunction was granted by the trial Court on 31st May, 2001 by which the defendant petitioners have been restrained from storing and distributing oil from the portion marked in red in the plaint map and also from raising new constructions. This order was challenged in appeal by the petitioner. On the petitioner's appeal, an order was passed by the District Judge, Gonda on 6th January, 2001 issuing notice and admitting the appeal and summoning the record fixing 9th July, 2001 for hearing the stay application. The order passed by the District Judge in the appeal r well as the order of mandatory interim injunction passed by the trial Court are the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.
(2.) In this writ petition, an interim order was passed on 28.6.2001 by which the petitioners have been permitted to continue operation on the land purchased by them shown in the sale deed dated 20.2.1999. The petitioner's Counsel submitted the that the petitioner is carrying out operation only on the land purchased by it. This position is disputed by the respondent No. 3. Be that as it may. The question appropriately may not be decided in the writ petition as there be clear alternative remedy in the appeal itself and the parties can appear before the Appellate Court.
(3.) Counsel for the parties agree that the parties shall appear either personally or through their respective Counsel before the District Judge, Gonda on 3rd January, 2002. By that date the respondent No. 3 will file his objections, if any, to the stay application. The District Judge, Gonda shall dispose of the stay application and if possible, the appeal itself by the 7th February, 2002.;