Narayan Shukla, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Umesh Chandra Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. Shishir Chandra, learned Counsel for respondents 4 and 5, who filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 4 and 5, the same is taken on record.
(2.) By means of the present writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.9.2007 passed by the District Judge, Bahraich in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 51/2007, whereby the order passed by the trial Court dated 1.9.2007 in Regular Suit No. 290 of 2007 has been stayed on the ground that period trial Court there was an application moved by the appellant raising objection on the maintainability of the suit itself and it should have been considered first and only thereafter the trial Court could have proceeded to pass the order on the application for temporary injunction.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 has made an effort to raise objection on the maintainability of the suit in light of the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Arun Kumar Tiwari v. Smt. Deepa Sharma and others, 2006 (1) ARC 717 , in which it has been held that whenever a serious challenge is made to the jurisdiction of the Court as well as to the valuation of the suit and sufficiency of the Court fee or to the maintainability of the suit, then if there appears, prima facie, some substance in those pleas, the proper procedure for the Court is to first decide these issues and then to decide the injunction application and other matters.;