- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and pe rused the record.
(2.) THE counter affidavit filed on be half of the respondents is taken on record. With the consent of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage. The dispute relates to the property left by one Sri Bindra Prasad son of Nihal, resident of village Jalalpur, h/o Badail, pargana and tehsil Nawabganj, District Barabanki who was a recorded tenure holder of the land comprised in plot No. 453-A. The contesting respondent No. 3 applied for mutation of his name after death of Sri Bindra Prasad in his place, on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by Sri Bindra Prasad in his favour. The petitioners contested the mutation proceedings and they set out a case that Bindra Prasad had executed a registered Will in their favour. The contention of petitioners was accepted by the revenue authorities and conse quently the names of petitioners were mu tated in the revenue records. In the mean time, the respondent No. 3, Ram Naresh Instituted a case No. 103 under section 229-B of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act for declaration of his title in respect of the property in question on the basis of the Will executed in his favour. The said case is still pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nawabganj, District Barabanki (hereinafter referred to as 's. D. M. ' ). An application for injunction was filed before the S. D. M. by Ram Naresh, respondent No. 3. The said application was dismissed by the order dated 30. 8. 2003. It was found that the names of petitioners have been ordered to be mutated by the Tehsildar on 9th July, 2001 and the said order has been confirmed in revision and upto High Court stage. The proceedings remained pending and an other attempt was made to obtain ad in terim order from the S. D. M. Court in the said suit. An application to this effect was filed on 21. 9. 2005. On the said application the S. D. M. passed order to the effect that till further orders the parties are directed to maintain status quo. On objection being raised by the petitioners, the said order was recalled on 17th November, 2005 vide Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition and 22nd December, 2005 was the date fixed for framing of issues. Subsequently, the respondent No. 3 approached this Court in writ petition wherein it was directed that an application filed by the respondent No. 3 may be considered by the S. D. M. This time the S. D. M. on 7th May, 2007 passed ad interim injunction order, impugned in the present writ petition, on the ground that the petitioners have sold away the part of the disputed land. This order was unsuc cessfully challenged in revision before the Addl. Commissioner, hence, the present writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respon dents submits that this Court should not interfere in the present writ petition as the present writ petition is directed against an interlocutory order. Refuting the aforesaid contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order has been passed without taking into con sideration the legal principles for grant of interim injunction order and, therefore, the order is liable to be quashed. Considered the respective sub missions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.;