Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Pal Singh Yadav, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Nripendra Mishra holding brief of Sri Manish Kumar, learned Counsel for the Respondents.
(2.) AS the question involved in the present case is trivial in nature, so the notices to the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are dispensed with. Facts in brief as submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are to the effect that initially Petitioner filed a Suit for permanent injunction registered as Regular Suit No. 216 of 2010 (Azam Ali Ansari v. Rakesh Yadav) pending in the court of Civil Judge(Senior Division), Mohanlal Ganj, Lucknow and in the said Suit, Petitioner moved an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure The said application came up for consideration before the court below on 07.07.2010 and after hearing the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff -Petitioner the trial court has issued notices to the Respondents to file objections on the ground that it is necessary to hear the Defendants in the Suit before granting temporary injunction.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that thereafter due to one or other pretext, application for grant of temporary injunction has not been decided, hence the present writ petition has been filed.;