RAJAN ROY,J. - (1.) Heard.
(2.) Petitioner's have challenged the order of the Trial Court granting temporary injunction against defendant no. 1 and 2 ( Petitioner no. 1 and 2 herein) and the Appellate Court order extending the said temporary injunction against other contesting defendants also that is the petitioner no. 3 and 4. While affirming the order of the Trial Court, in spite of the observation made by them about no demarcation having been taken place under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and that partition of agricultural holding could not be done by the Civil Court as also the reference to ownership issues being involved, especially when the suit is only for injunction and it's jurisdiction in this regard.
(3.) Considering the order proposed to be passed especially in view of the assertion of the parties represented today that opposite party no's. 4 to 6 are performa parties though without expressing any conclusive opinion in this regard, issuance of notice to them is dispensed with. Shri S.K. Mishra, Advocate has already put in appearance on behalf on Opposite party no. 3.;