Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Hemant Kumar Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned senior Counsel assisted by Sri Manish Mathur, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2. Respondent nos. 3 to 6 were represented by Sri Sainuddin Mohd. Siddiqui, learned counsel.
(2.) Admittedly Regular Suit No. 222 of 1998 is pending before the Court below wherein the relief sought by the plaintiff reads as under :- (a) That the plaintiffs be allowed to sue as indigent persons as the plaintiffs do not have means to pay the requisite court fee of Rs. 31,190/-. (b) That by the decree of cancellation of the decree passed in Regular Suit No. 133 of 1984 passed by the Additional Civil Judge IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Lucknow (S.D.) be cancelled for the pleas mentioned above. (c) That the plaintiffs be awarded costs of the suit against the defendants. (d) That the plaintiffs be awarded any other relief for which the plaintiffs are found entitled to.
(3.) It is fruitful to mention that two applications were filed in the said suit which were registered as Application No. 92-C and 39-C. The Application No. 92-C was filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by late Zahida Khatoon predecessor of respondents no. 3 to 6 whereas Application No. 39-C was filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 which remained pending at the relevant point of time when the suit was instituted. The Trial Court seems to have passed an order deferring disposal of Application No. 39-C during pendency of Application No. 92-C which gave rise to Civil Revision No. 124 of 2002. The civil revision came up for orders on 24.07.2002 when this Court passed the following order :- "Present revision has been filed against the order dated 11.07.2002 whereby the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lucknow, directed hearing of application 92-C first. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionists. It appears, a suit for cancellation of decree was filed in which an application for interim relief 39-C was moved earlier to the moving of application 92-C, in which it was prayed that the suit was not maintainable. The trial court directed hearing of this application first and thereby disposal of application 39-C, for interim injunction, was to await out come of the disposal of application 92-C. Looking to the direction given by the trial court, it is not proper to interfere and the trial court shall dispose of this application 92-C at an early date but in the meantime and till disposal of application 39-C the parties shall maintain status-quo with reference to the construction and properties in dispute. With these directions, the revision is disposed of finally.";