Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel.

2. Since the controversy involved in the present writ petition is that as to whether against issuance of notice in a regular suit, civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable or not, the question is purely legal, hence the issuance of notice to opposite-parties No. 2 to 12 is dispensed with.

3. With the consent of the parties’ Counsel, I proceed to hear the matter finally at the admission stage.

4. Petitioner claims to be owner and in possession of Plot No. 531/1 situated at Mohalla Sahjadpur Pargana and Tehsil Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. Opposite party No. 2 had filed a regular suit for injunction against the petitioner. He has impleaded the petitioner’s family members and near relative as defendant. The suit was filed on 8.9.2005 alongwith application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court being not satisfied at initial stage issued notices to the defendants on the application moved for temporary injunction. Feeling aggrieved with the issuance of notice by the trial Court, the petitioner had filed a Civil Revision No. 102 of 2005 before learned District Judge, Ambedkarnagar. A revision was admitted by the opposite party No. 1 on 26.9.2005 and notices were issued. It has also been stated by the petitioner that the plaintiff/ respondents had committed fraud to obtain ex parte injunction by preferring a revision. The allegations have been raised relating to alleged commission of fraud by the plaintiff in para 8 of the writ petition.

5. Solitary ground raised by the petitioner’s Counsel is that the learned District Judge, had acted without jurisdiction while entertaining revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In para 7 of the writ petition learned Counsel for the petitioner had referred some of the Judgments reported in 2003 (3) AWC 2198 (SC), Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society Nagpur v. Swaraj Developer and others; 2006 (24) LCD 798, 2006(2) J.C.L.R. 977, Imamuddin v. Mohd. Yousuf and others; 2006 (2) JCLR 961. Narendra Kumar v. Nagar Nigam Bareilly and others; 2006 (1) JCLR 437, M/s. Eldeco Housing and Industries Limited v. Lucknow Docesan Trust and others; 2006 (6) ALJ (NOC) 240 : 2006 (3) ARC 156, Cantonment Board and others v. District Judge Incharge Lucknow and others, to advance his argument that revision against the issuance of notice in pending suit on application of injunction is not maintainable.

6. On the other hand attention has been invited of this Court towards a Judgement of this Court reported in 2006 RD 322, Algu v. Bhola, whether Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court had recorded a finding that a revision against the issuance of notice shall be maintainable.

7. Now the question arises whether revision shall be maintainable or not? While deciding the case of Algu (supra), Hon’ble Single Judge had distinguished the Judgement of Shiv Shakti (supra) by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

8. Though relying upon various Apex Court and Division Bench judgments of this Court it was settled by one another Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in a case reported in 2006 (24) LCD 798, Cantonment Board and others v. District Judge Incharge lucknow and others, that against issuance of notice revision shall not be maintainable. But for the reasons best known to the member of Bar they have not referred for consideration of the judgement of Cantonment Board and others v. District Judge, Incharge Lucknow and others (supra) when the controversy of the case of Algu was before Hon’ble Single Judge for adjudication. While deciding the judgement of Cantonment Board (supra) Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court had considered the Apex Court judgment reported in AIR 1964 SC 497, S.S. Khanna v. F.J. Dillon; AIR 1966 SC 153. Pandurang Dhondi Chougule and others v. Maruti Hari Jadhav and others; 2003 (6) SCC 659. Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Soci