Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) By means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos.2 to 6 to remove the illegal possession/encroachment of the defendant-respondent No.1 made by him during the pendency of suit with immediate effect. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos.2 to 6 to comply the injunction order dated 17.09.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Basti in Suit No. 631 of 2005 (Ram Surat and another v. Jhinku ) with immediate effect strictly in accordance with law. (c) Issue any other writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (d) Award the costs of petition in favour of the petitioners."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners while arguing the relief prayed for as above has placed reliance upon the order dated 17th September, 2005, whereby in a suit filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction against the respondent no.1, an interim injunction was granted by the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interim injunction order passed by the trial court has operated throughout and in the teeth of the order passed by the trial court some construction of boundary wall has been made by the respondent no.1-defendant. The interim injunction order passed by the trial court was granted exparte. From the perusal of record, it is evident that the notices have also been issued and the defendant has put in appearance in the suit proceedings and has also filed written statement before the court below. After putting in appearance it cannot be said that the respondent is unaware of the trial court order.;