TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri M.A. Qadeer, the learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mohd. Waris, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, the learned senior counsel duly assisted by Sri A.K. Srivastava, the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs-Respondents.
(2.) IT transpires that issues Nos. 5 and 6 were framed by the trial Court after the exchange of pleadings. These issues related with regard to the jurisdiction of the trial Court and, whether the suit was maintainable or not. The defendants filed an application 158 Ga, purported to be under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C,. wherein the defendants prayed that since no cause of action arose, the plaint should be rejected. The trial Court," by an order dated 21.5.2008, directed that the said application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. would be decided along with the issues Nos. 5 and 6 and fixed 7.7.2008 for its disposal. The defendants, being aggrieved by this order, filed a civil revision No,76 of 2008 which was dismissed as not maintainable, lay an order dated 10.9.2008. The plaintiffs were also aggrieved by the order of the trial Court dated 21.5.2008 and filed Writ petition No. 779 of 2008, S.M. Ahmad Hasan and others v. Sri Sajid Hasan and others praying for the quashing of the order of the trial Court dated 21.5.2008 and, further prayed that the defendants may not dispossess the plaintiffs. The Writ Court, by an order dated 21.9.08, disposed of the writ petition directing the trial Court to decide the injunction application of the plaintiffs on or before 22.10.08 and, further directed the parties to maintain status quo, as existing as on date till 22.10.08. Apparently, this order was passed ex parte against the contesting defendants and the writ petition was disposed of at the initial stage itself without issuing notice to the defendants.
(3.) ARMED with this order of the Court, it transpires that the plaintiffs pressed his injunction application. On the other hand, the defendants contended that they were pressing for the disposal of their application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. and for the disposal of the issues Nos. 5 and 6. However, the trial Court did not decide those issues and, by an order dated 20.10.2008, decided the injunction application and granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. The trial Court, by the said order, also fixed 6.11.2008 for the disposal of the application -158 Ga and issues Nos. 5 and 6.;