Jaswant Singh, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFFS /petitioners in the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution have assailed the order dated 8.11.2011 (P3) whereby the learned appellate court in the application under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC filed alongwith the appeal by the defendants challenging the injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs/petitions vide order dated 4.11.2011 has stayed the operation of the injunction order granted by the trial court while issuing notice on the interim stay for 24.11.2011.
(2.) IT is submitted that trial court on the injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs on the basis of the material placed on record found the petitioners/ plaintiffs to be in possession and thus granted injunction in their favour restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession with further permission to plaintiffs/petitioners to harvest their standing crops and if need be, to seek police help as well. Learned counsel submits that keeping in view the urgency of the matter, as the crop being perishable commodity, the plaintiffs/petitioners have subsequently made an application on 8.11.2011 before the learned appellate court seeking early hearing of the interim stay application listed for 24.11.2011 or in the alternative permitting them to harvest the standing crop.
(3.) AT the time of arguments, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/ petitioners submits that in the facts of the case, the plaintiffs would be satisfied if the learned appellate court is directed to dispose of the interim stay application expeditiously in view of the possibility that the standing crop may not be destroyed. It is further undertaken that the petitioners would not take any adjournment beyond 24.11.2011 before the learned appellate court.;