- (1.) Notice on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 has been accepted by Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate. For the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to the opposite parties No. 2 to 8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.9.2011 by which the learned Court below has refused to extend the temporary injunction order dated 24.12.2010.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that since no application has been decided as such the petitioner has no other remedy but to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The grievance of the petitioners is that the learned Court below has wrongly come to the conclusion that the petitioners are not interested in disposal of the application moved under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, CPC and they are delaying the proceedings. As such, he has refused to extend the status que order dated 24.12.2010.;