Hon’ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.2.2006, passed by the Revisional Court in a suit for permanent injunction. The petitioner plaintiff moved an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1& 2 CPC, upon which the Trial Court issued notices to the defendants respondents No. 1 to 3, vide Annexure No. 2, and fixed a date for objection and disposal of the temporary injunction matter. The petitioner plaintiff went in revision against that order which was though entertained/a^ was found to be not maintainable and after hearing both the parties the Revisional Court discussing the merits of the respective cases of parties, passed the impugned order directing the Trial Court to hear the temporary injunction matter and then pass suitable orders in that regard.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Revisional Court directed that the revision was not maintainable and it required the Trial Court to hear the temporary injunction matter and dispose of the application of the petitioner and objections of the respondents on merits. It was not in the