Dalip Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) IT is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the similarly situated persons, who filed the suit for injunction for restraining the Nagar Nigam from dispossessing the plaintiff from the shops of which they are in possession alleging that they are the tenant of the Devasthan Department and in whose favour the learned trial Court passed an order of temporary injunction, but on an appeal being preferred by the Nagar Nigam, the appeal was allowed and the order of temporary injunction was vacated, such similarly situated persons preferred writ petitions before this Court against the appellate judgment and this Court dismissed the writ petitions against the judgment of the learned Appellate Court allowing the appeal filed by the Nagar Nigam vide order dated 01.11.2006. Against the decision of the Single Judge dated 01.11.2006, it has been submitted that the plaintiffs have preferred D.B. S.A.W. No.1288/2006, which is pending before the Division Bench, wherein the order of interim relief in favour of the plaintiffs has been granted directing that the status-quo to be maintained in respect of the subject matter. In view of the above position, since the writ petitions filed by the similarly situated plaintiffs have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 01.11.2006 (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8449/2006 titled as Dilip Kumar Vs. Nagar Nigam, Jaipur and Others) with a view to maintain parity, these writ petitions are dismissed in the light of the aforesaid decision of this Court in the case of Dilip Kumar (supra). However, with a view to allow the petitioner to approach the learned Division Bench in the matter the respondents are directed to maintain status-quo in the matter for a period of two weeks. Consequently, both the writ petitions are dismissed subject to the above.;