- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
(2.) THE petitioners-plaintiffs aggrieved by an order passed by the trial Court, whereby the trial Court has rejected the application for grant of temporary injunction saying that the trial Court has already issued notices and without affording opportunity to the other side, no temporary injunction can be granted to the petitioners approached the revisional Court by means of revision and the revisional Court has also dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioners on the ground no irreparable injury has been caused to the petitioners by the order impugned in the revision, nor it has occasion in failure of justice. It is these two orders, which have been challenged by the petitioner by means of present writ petition. So far as the order passed by the revisional Court is concerned, I do not find any error in the order passed by the revisional Court, so far as it says that revision is liable to be dismissed on the ground that no irreparable injury has been caused to the petitioners by the order impugned in the revision. It is settled by series of decisions of this Court that the order issuing notices for affording opportunity of hearing to the other side before passing any injunction order by the trial Court is an interlocutory order against which no revision lies as held by the apex Court as well as by this Court, therefore, the revision filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs was in fact not maintainable. However, the revisional Court has dismissed the same on other grounds, it should have been dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable. So far as the question for grant of temporary injunction by the revisional Court when the trial Court has issued notices and refused to grant the temporary injunction that it is necessary to hear other side also being an order interlocutory in nature, which is not covered by any of the provisions referred to in the second Schedule of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended in the State of U. P. does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this Court does not find it a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) IN view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to communicate a copy of this order to all the District Judges in the State of U. P. for its compliance. .;