- (1.) The petitioners claim themselves to be the tenant in a premises owned by respondent no.3. It is submitted that respondent no.3 has entered into an agreement with respondents no.1 and 2 to sell the said property. In the said agreement it is submitted that the property in question has been shown to be a land whereas the petitioners claim that there is a construction on the land and the petitioners are the tenant in it and they have been tenant since 1948 and apprehend that the defendants-respondents will forcibly evict the petitioners and demolish the construction standing on the plot without following due process of law and, therefore, a suit for permanent injunction being Suit No. 762 of 2014 is said to have been filed along with an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC. On the said application only notices have been issued. The respondent no.1 is said to have been served. However, for respondent nos.2 and 3 the court has directed for fresh steps of service for which learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already taken steps. It is submitted that respondent nos. 2 and 3 are fully aware of filing of the suit and are deliberately not appearing. It is further submitted that the next date fixed for considering the application of the interim injunction is 28.8.2014 and it is prayed that on the said date the said application be considered and decided.
(2.) The petition is disposed of with the direction that the court below on the next date fixed or any other short date that the court may fix, decide the application of the petitioners in accordance with law, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties provided there is no other legal impediment in the same, inasmuch as, no interim order is operating against the disposal of the said application.;