( 1 ) RULE. Ms. V. P. Shah the learned Counsel for the contesting opponents has waived the service of the Rule.

( 2 ) IN paragraph 14 of the memo of the revision application the petitioners have firstly prayed for an order under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure transferring Special Civil Suit No. 473 of 1990 pending in the court of Shri A. J. Brahmbhatt the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) Surat to the court of any other Judge competent to try and decide that suit. In the alternative the petitioners have prayed that the orders passed below applications Exhs. 5 7 8 and 36 in the aforesaid suit by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) at Surat be set aside. However at the time of hearing of this Civil Revision Application Mr. D. D. Vyas for the petitioners fairly conceded that the order passed by the trial court on Exh. 5 cannot be the subject-matter of this revision petition for that is an order under Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure issuing certain injunctions and such an order could only be challenged by way of an appeal from order under Section 104 read with Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. So far as the request for transfer of the suit under Section 24 of the C. P. Code is concerned that request was also not seriously pressed Mr. Vyas at the hearing of this C. R. A. for it was apparent that in the present Revision petition such a request cannot be entertained.

( 3 ) HOWEVER at the hearing of this C. R. A. Mr. Vyas for the petitioners very vehemently chal- lenged the orders passed by the trial court on the applications Exhs. 7 and 8 moved by the original plaintiff who is Opponent No. 1 before me and the order on application Exh. 36 which was moved by petitioner No. 2 who is the Defendant No. 5 in the suit.

( 4 ) OPPONENT No. 1 Mukeshkumar Jaiprakash Agarwal for himself and as the Manager and Karta of his Hindu Joint Family filed the aforesaid suit from which this revision petition arises against the present two revision petitioners and Opponents No. 2 to 7. In that suit Opponent No. 1 as the plaintiff prayed for a declaration that all the properties and businesses mentioned in the Schedule annexed to the plaint are the Joint Hindu Family properties and business of the plaintiff and Defendants No. 1 to 4. It may be mentioned that Defendants No. 1 2 and 3 in the suit are Opponents No. 2 3 and 4 respectively in this petition and Defendant No. 4 is petitioner No. 1 in this petition. Opponent No. 1 also prayed for declaration that he has one-fourth share in the suit properties. He also prayed for a declaration that a certain writing taken by Defendants No. 1 to 4 from him is nominal bogus and not to be acted upon and is even otherwise fraudulent illegal and null and void. He also prayed for an order for cancellation of that document. He also prayed an injunction restraining Defendants No. 1 to 4 from alienating the suit properties. A relief for accounts and getting his share in the properties or taking accounts was also prayed for by Oppo- nent No. 1.

( 5 ) ALONGWITH the suit which was filed or 20/08/1990 the plaintiff on the same day moved three applications Exhs. 5 7 and 8 However the plaintiffs learned Advocate did not take those three applications to the learned Judge for orders upto 26/08/1990 For the firs time the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs presents those three applications Exhs. 5 7 and 8 before the learned Judge for passing first orders on 27/08/1990 and the ground that was put up by the plaintiffs learned Advocate for not having pressed those applications earlier was that he had gone to Bombay where his daughter was operated upon. Be that as it may on the three applications Exhs. 5 7 and 8 which were filed before the court alongwith the suit on 20/08/1990 the courts first orders were sought by the plaintiff-opponent No. 1 through his Advocate for the first time on 27/08/1990

( 6 ) BY Exh. 5 opponent No. 1-plaintiff prayed for an interim injunction restraining Defendants No. 1 to 4