- (1.) PRADEEP Kant, J. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the judg ment and order dated 1- 11-1999 passed by the learned Illrd Additional District Judge, Gonda, contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The preliminary objection was raised by the opposite parties that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable therefore, I have treated this petition under Article 227 of the Con stitution.
(2.) THE plaintiffs-petitioners had filed a suit with respect to certain properties alleged ly inclusive of agricultural and residential properties against defendants-opposite parties 3, 4 and 5 and that suit was in stituted on 7th September, 1999. An ap plication under Order 39 read with Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filedalongwith the plaint on the same day. The learned trial Court was not convinced that any case of urgency has been made out so as to grant any ad-inter im injunction, therefore, an order for is suance of notices fixing 22-9-1999 as the date of hearing of the application for tem porary injunctionwas passed. The plaintiffs-petitioners on 8th September, 1999, moved another applica tion for fixing an early date in the case and at the same time also moved an application for amendment of the plaint. The amend ment prayed for was to the effect for cor recting the plot No. 576 Ka as 873 Ka. On 9th September, 1999, the amendment ap plication was allowed and on the very next day an application for temporary injunc tion (Second application) under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed.
(3.) THE trial Court on the said applica tion passed an order for maintaining status quo. After passing of the said order on that very day, another application was moved by the plaintiffs- petitioners purporting to be under Section 151, CPC of the Code of Civil Procedure indicating therein that the order of status quo is vague and injurious and, therefore, the defendants be restrained from dispossessing the plain tiff- petitioners or interfering in their peaceful possession. A prayer was also made that the order passed earlier on the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, CPC be modified accordingly and the defendants be directed not to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs-petitioners. This application was allowed on the same day by the trial Court by means of the order of the same day and the temporary injunction was granted directing the defendants not to interfere in the peace ful possession of the plaintiffs. THE first order which was passed on 10th September, 1999 directing the defendants to maintain status quo has been brought on record as Annexure C-13 to the counter- affidavit. THE petitioners have not filed the said order. THE order by means of which the earlier order of status quo was modified and sub stituted by an order of temporary in junc tion has been brought on record as An-nexure-1 to the writ petition. The defendants on coming to know about the aforesaid orders moved an ap plication for vacation of ex-parte interim injunction and also filed an appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (r) before the learned District Judge which came up for hearing before III Additional District Judge, Gonda.;