D.K.SETH, J. - (1.) BY means of this ap­plication, the order dated 19-2-96 is sought to be recalled and reviewed on the ground that the same was decided ex pane without hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and that the equity part of the facts involved in the case was loss sight of and that the ratio decided in the case of Ganga Saran v. District Judge, Hapur, AIR 1991 (All) 114, relied upon in the said case had no manner of application and that because of the judgment substantial injus­tice has been ensued and that the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of its non-maintainability, though a writ peti­tion is maintainable against an order passed on an application for ad-interim injunction.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Shri K.S. Tiwari had addressed the Court on the merit of the case in order to substantiate his contention that in the present case fundamental principle of law has been violated and that substantial in­justice has been caused due to the order impugned in the present writ petition. He had dealt with the question of fact and referred to various documents in order to substantiate his contention. Mr. Trwari had contended that against an order passed in a civil suit by a civil court a writ petition is maintainable in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ganga Saran (supra) wherein the question referred to the Full Bench being question No. 2 as to the main­tainability of the writ petition against an order passed in exercise of revisional juris­diction by the District Judge in the affirm­ative. He had relied on the observation made in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said Full Bench decision. According to him if there is substantial injustice and there is violation of fundamental principle of law, the writ jurisdiction attracted.
(3.) HE further contends that the ques­tion of issuance of mandamus against a party does not arise in the present case since in the writ petition only a prayer for issuance of certiorari has been made. 1;