- (1.) THE petitioners have filed a civil suit only on 13. 6. 2008 i. e. during summer vacations. On 18. 6. 2008 the petitioners filed a writ petition bear ing number 2962 (MS) of 2008 for having a direction to the civil Court to decide the d application for temporary injunction during vacations.
(2.) IN pursuance of the order passed by the High Court, the petitioners moved an application on 20. 6. 2008 before the civil Court bringing the order passed by the High Court to the notice of the civil Court. The Court below in turn took up the application on 21. 6. 2008 i. e. again in vacations. On that date, the petitioners filed an application under Order 26 Rule 10, CPC for issuance of commission, which prayer was allowed and 24. 6. 2008 was fixed in the matter. Since on 24. 6. 2008, the Advocate Commissioner did not submit the report, therefore, the matter was fixed for 28. 6. 08. In the meantime, it appears that another person Ashwani Kumar Singh Rana also filed a regular suit No. 238 of 2008 on 23. 6. 08, wherein an order has been passed in his favour for not dispossessing him otherwise than in accor dance with law. The petitioners moved an application before the Civil Judge for modification/clarification of the order dated 24. 6. 08 passed in favour of Ashwani Kumar Singh Rana. Since Ashwani Kumar Singh Rana has filed a separate suit and he has not been impleaded in the writ petition though specific averments have been made with respect to him in the petition, we do not find any occasion to comment upon the suit filed by Ashwani Kumar Singh Rana against the peti tioners. So far the petitioners are concerned, the petitioners are also enjoying a status quo order passed on 24. 6. 2008. The petitioners have moved an application only on 15. 7. 08 for some additional interim relief, on which 2. 8. 08 has already been fixed. Despite repeatedly being asked as to what prompted the petitioners to approach this Court at this juncture, no satisfactory answer could be given by the Counsel for the petitioners. The events aforesaid indicate that the Civil Judge is promptly hearing the matter and the petitioners have moved several applications in the meantime. If the petitioners have moved an application on 15. 7. 08 for any additional relief after the grant of status quo order and if the Civil Judge has fixed the matter for 2. 8. 08, we do not find any reason to have any dissatisfaction on the part of the petitioners.
(3.) THE petitioners have come before this Court today i. e. on 25. 7. 08 and 2. 8. 08 has already been fixed by the civil Court. We do not find it expedient to entertain the petition, apart from the fact that no cause of action has accrued to the petitioners to approach this Court under Article 226 at this juncture. The petitioners are at liberty to appear before the Court below on 2,8. 08. It is expected that appropriate orders on the application would be passed by the civil Court on 2. 8. 08, subject to the cooperation of the parties. 8. We take notice of the fact that there is a recent trend of coming to the High Court by the litigants, who file civil suit in the civil Court either for getting the date fixed preponed or for getting a direction issued, in a matter where ex-parte tempo rary injunction is not granted and only notice is issued, praying for grant of tempo rary injunction till disposal of the temporary injunction application. We find it our duty to point out that if the trial Court does not grant interim injunction and only issues notice, normally there would be no case for coming to the High Court, unless, of course, very strong and exceptional circumstances exist, particularly when such a litigant is at liberty to move an application to the District Judge, if permissible at all. Likewise, for preponing the date fixed, it would be proper and advisable that the party who seeks preponement of the date, should approach the trial Court giving reasons as to why the date be preponed and if such an applica tion is moved, we do not find any reason as to why the trial Court would not consider the same. The parties have also a right to approach the District Judge for preponement of the date and if the District Judge is satisfied with the reason shown, orders may be passed accordingly. 9. Coming to the High Court for trivial matters is not the purpose of Article 226 of the Constitution. It is in rare cases having strong and exceptional circum stances, where straightaway High Court can be approached in the matters which are pending in the civil Court. 10. The petition is dismissed. .;