Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mithlesh Kumar Tiwari appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Both the Counsels have agreed that the writ petition be disposed of at this stage without inviting counter affidavit. Learned Counsel for the petitioners at the very outset has submitted that his prayer be confined only for quashing the order dated 21.4.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bijnore rejecting the application of the writ petitioner filed in the aid of Appeal before the District Judge, Bijnore.

2. A suit No. 393 of 1996 was filed by the respondents seeking a decree for permanent injunction and for cancellation of an agreement to sale dated 14.8.1996. The trial Court vide its judgement and decree dated 6.4.2006 decreed the suit. The relief of permanent injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff with regard to disputed shops as described in List A and B of the plaint. The defendants were restrained from interfering ;with the possession of the plaintiff. The agreement to sale dated 14.8.1996 was declared as void and inoperative. The trial Court further ordered that the plaintiff will be at liberty to take appropriate st