Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Nripendra Misrha, Advocate holding brief of Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Surendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

2. Facts in brief as submitted by Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate are that respondent Nos. 3 and 4/plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction registered as Regular Suit No. 50 of 2010 (Sri Shashi Kant Bajpayee and another v. Sri Nizamuddin and another) in the Court of Civil Judge North (J.D.), Lucknow. In the said suit, an application for grant of temporary injunction has been moved on behalf of plaintiffs/respondents and on 23.4.2010, a temporary injunction was granted in favour of plaintiffs/respondents. Subsequently, modified vide order dated 26.4.2010 (Annexure 4) by the trial Court.

3. On 2.5.2010, petitioners/defendants moved an application under Order 39 rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC for vacation of the ex parte injunction order granted in favour of plaintiffs/respondents (Annexure 5).

4. Thereafter, an application for amendment of the plaint was moved by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, rejected by order dated 18.5.2010 (Annexure 6). Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs/respondents filed Civil Revision No. 73 of 2010 (Shashi Kant Bajpai and another v. Nizamuuddin and another), in whivh District Judge, Lucknow passed an order dated 26.5.2010 (Annexure 12), however, the same was dismissed by order dated 29.1.2011.

5. In the intervening period plaintiffs/respondents approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 3533 of 2010, Shashi Kant Bajpai and another v. District Judge, Lucknow and others, allowed partly by order dated 8.6.2010, the operative portion of the same reads as under :

“It is also clarified that apart from the disputed land with regard to which the injunction order of status quo was granted the opposite parties No. 5 and 6 will be at liberty to carry on their finishing work, if at all is needed and the authorities will not create any hindrance in the aforesaid action of the opposite parties No. 5 and 6.

Writ petition is party allowed to that extent. “

6. As per the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioner in the said matter this Court has given a finding, the same is as under :

“The submission is that either the injunction vacation application of the opposite parties No. 5 and 6 should be disposed of first and thereafter the amendment application was ordered on 17.5.2010. Against this order an application for recalling the said order was preferred but the said application was rejected by means of order dated 18.5.2010. The order dated 18.5.2010 has been subjected to challenge in revision before the revisional Court. During the pendency of the revision, an application was given by the opposite parties No. 5 and 6 for remitting the record to the trial Court and in the meantime the case was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge-II, Lucknow and it is stated that no notice was given to the petitioners either prior to the transfer or after the transfer and the revisional Court proceeded to pass the order on application of the opposite parties No. 5 and 6 remitting the record back to the trial Court with a view to get the injunction vacation application decided.”

7. In addition to the abovesaid facts, plaintiffs/respondents also approached this Court by filling writ petition No. 5821 (MB) of 2010 (Sri Shashi Kant Bajpayee and another v. State of U.P. and others), disposed of by order dated 17.6.2010, operative portion of the same is as under :

“Accordingly, there is no ground to interfere in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. However, it is provided that in case any application is moved under Section 151 C.P.C. within one week from today, that shall be adjudicated by the trial Court. In the absence of trial Court, c