Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as the learned standing counsel.
(2.) SINCE the controversy involved in the present writ petition is that as to whether against issuance of notice in a regular suit, civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable or not, the question is purely legal, hence the issuance of notice to opposite parties No. 2 to 12 is dispensed with. With the consent of the parties' counsel, I proceed to hear the matter finally at the admission stage.
(3.) PETITIONER claims to be owner and in possession of Plot No. 531/1 situated at Mohalla Sahjadpur Pargana and Tehsil Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. Opposite party No. 2 had filed a regular suit for injunction against the Petitioner. He has impleaded the Petitioner's family members and near relative as Defendant. The suit was filed on 8.9.2005 alongwith application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court being not satisfied at initial stage issued notices to the Defendants on the application moved for temporary injunction. Feeling aggrieved with the issuance of notice by the trial court, the Petitioner had filed a Civil Revision No. 102 of 2005 before learned District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar. A revision was admitted by the opposite party No. 1 on 26.9.2005 and notices were issued. It has also been stated by the Petitioner that the Plaintiff/ Respondents had committed fraud to obtain ex parte injunction by preferring a revision. The allegations have been raised relating to alleged commission of fraud by the Plaintiff in para 8 of the writ petition.;