Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - This revision petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of order dated 2.4.2011 vide which suit for declaration as also for injunction filed by respondents No.1 to 5 was allowed to be instituted invoking provisions of Sections 9 and 91 CPC. Order dated 21.2.2012 has also been impugned in this revision petition whereby application of the petitioners-applicants before the lower court for seeking revocation of order dated 2.4.2011 was rejected.

2. Respondents No.1 to 5 had instituted a suit under Section 9 and 91 CPC on 2.4.2011 seeking a decree of declaration and of injunction with averments that a multistory building by illegally joining three plots was under construction by defendants No.1 to 4, petitioners herein, in the name of Halwasiya Mall, Hansi Road, Bhiwani allegedly on the public park land in violation of the provisions of the Haryana Urban Development of Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 as also under the provisions of Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 and its building bye-laws/ notifications issued from time to time. It is claimed that even other notifications covering the field and policy of raising of construction of shopping malls as also fire safety and protection norms etc. had not been complied with and the upcoming construction in the nature of a commercial mall is illegal and unsafe. It was claimed that lease deed executed by defendant Bijay Shankar Halwasiya, now petitioner, in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 (his son and wife) was to be scanned. It was also claimed that any sale deed executed by defendants No.1 to 3, now petitioners, by their attorney in the name of any other person and consequently registered by defendant No.18 is in violation of the provisions of Haryana Development and Regulations of Urban Areas Act, 1975, Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act,1983 and the Registration Act, 1908. Some other grounds were also taken claiming that the defendants in collusion with each other while playing fraud, were raising construction to the prejudice of general public while defeating the interest of public welfare as also of safety of the masses.

3. Considering the facts put forth in the application under Section 91 CPC and the attending circumstances, the application was allowed on 2.4.2011 when notice of the suit as well as of the injunction application was then issued to the defendants including notice to defendant No.19 i.e. General public was issued through publication in Dainik Bhaskar for 20.5.2011.

4. Defendant Nos.1 to 4, petitioners herein, on coming to know of this order, while making appearance in the suit, made an application seeking revocation of order dated 2.4.2011 (Annexure P-4). It was claimed that there were certain facts which had not engaged the attention of the court and had those facts been considered, impugned order on application under Section 91 CPC filed by respondents-plaintiffs, could not have been passed by the court. It is averred that even earlier a civil suit had been filed by respondent No.1 against the State of Haryana and others in respect of the same subject matter and that the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.11.2011. It is claimed further that even in a pending litigation, an application was moved by the contesting respondents under Order I Rule 10 CPC which application was also dismissed on 16.12.2010 against which civil revision in this Court was also dismissed on 27.1.2011.

5. In short, it is claimed that grant of permission by the court to the respondents-plaintiffs under Section 91 CPC to institute a suit against the petitioners-defendants is nothing but providing a handle to arm-twist the petitioners whereas the respondents-plaintiffs neither have any cause of action nor have any locus standi to file the suit, as they do not even belong to the vicinity of the property in dispute.