P.N. Nag, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioners -defendants have challenged the order dated 26th August, 1994, passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Varanasi as well as the order dated 16th April, 1993 passed by III Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi, whereby they have been restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff -respondent over the disputed plot till disposal of the suit. The plaintiffs claim the land -in -dispute on the basis of a Will alleged to have been executed by one Mst. Jaihunnisa on 19.4.1990. But the stand taken by the defendants, on the other hand, is that the real owner of the land in dispute is Mst. Jaibunnisa, had executed a registered sale -deed in respect of the disputed property in favour of the defendants -petitioners, and they are now in possession thereof, therefore, they are legitimately entitled to the land -in -dispute. The injunction application, filed by the plaintiffs - respondents along with the suit is to effect that the defendants -respondents should be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the land in dispute. This application was allowed by an order dated 16th April, 1993 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi (Annexure 4 to the writ petition), whereby the defendants -petitioners were restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs.
(2.) AGAINST the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed by the petitioners defendants before the IVth Additional District Judge Varanasi. This appeal was dismissed by an order dated 26th August, 1994 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition). These orders have been challenged on various grounds, inter alia, that the courts below have raised illegal presumption against the defendants -petitioners regarding the possession of the land in dispute and that the injunction should not have been granted against the defendants -petitioners by the court. According to the petitioners, the courts below have not appreciated the correct position of law and that their orders dated 26th August, 1994 and 16th April, 1993 should be quashed and the parties should be directed to maintain status -quo.
(3.) DURING the course of hearing, at the very outset, this court wanted to be satisfied regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged that this question has been settled by this court in various decisions and in such matters which are governed under the civil law, High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have always exercised special jurisdiction and granted relief's.;