( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23-12-2005 passed by the revisional court.

( 3 ) A Suit for permanent injunction filed by the contesting respondent No. 1 an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 c. P. C was also moved for grant of temporary injunction. The trial court not being fully satisfied for granting exparte injunction order directed notices to be issued to the defendant petitioner as well as proforma respondents.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED against that order Civil Revision No. 219 of 2005 was preferred by the plaintiff before the District Judge an by the impugned order the District Judge admitted the same and directed the notice to be issued to the petitioner defendant and proforma respondents/ defendants. He has also passed the interim order directing both the parties to maintain status quo regarding property in question.

( 5 ) IT has been submitted from the side of petitioner that the very order of entertaining the revision is illegal as the revision was not at all maintainable. The learned counsel has cited the case law of Gayatri Devi and others Vs. Shashi Pal Singh, (2005) 5 scc 527: AIR 2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document