The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners were entitled to occupy only the area that was allotted to them and could be evicted from any excess area. The court also considered the order passed in a writ petition, which prevented the petitioners from being dispossessed.

Suneet Kumar, J.

Heard Sri H.L. Mishra, Advocate assisted by Sri Abhishek Misra learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The plaintiff/petitioners filed Misc. Case No. 3 of 2014 for permanent injunction against the defendant/respondent not to dispossess them from the shop, nor demolish the shop, nor enhance the rent. An application under section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, was filed? for dispensing with the? service of notice under Sub-section (1)? of Section 80. The trial court rejected the application by order dated 21.01.2014. Aggrieved, the plaintiff/petitioners filed Civil Revision No. 7 of 2014, which was rejected by the Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Gorakhpur vide order dated 29.03.2014. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners approached this Court.

3. Submission of learned Senior Advocate is that there is urgency in the matter as the shop in question is? in occupation of the petitioners, and in case, the shop is demolished, the cause will not survive. The courts below had taken notice of the fact that the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No.11088 and this Court? vide order dated 04.07.2013 stayed the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners. The operative portion of the order is as follows: -

"Petitioners in reply to paragraph 5 to the counter affidavit have stated that the petitioners are occupying only that shop which was allotted to the petitioners. No specific reply has been given by the petitioners of paragraphs 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit and allegations made in paragraph 11 have been denied without any specific reply. From the facts brought on the record, it does appear that the allotment was made of (Gumti) to the petitioners measuring 12x8 Ft. Clear allegations have come up in the counter affidavit that the petitioners are illegally occupying an area more than that was allotted to them.

4. From the facts brought on the record it is clear that the petitioners are entitled to occupy only that area which was allotted to them i.e. 12x8Ft. Petitioners are liable to be evicted from any area in excess of 12x8 Ft.

5. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents that the petitioners occupation of area 12x8 Ft (Gumti) shall not be interfered with. However, it shall be open for the respondents to evict the petitioners from any excess area occupied by the petitioners in excess of 12x8 Ft"

6. The State-respondents filed their objections to the application under Section 80(2) C.P.C., wherein, it is? stated that the plaintiff/tenant has defaulted in payment of rent. Even, in case, the rent is not being paid, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed in view of the order of this Court passed in writ petition. The submission of learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner, that the measurement of the shop 12x8Ft' is wrongly transcribed in the order dated 04.07.2013 passed in the writ petition, wherein, it should be 12Mt.x8Mt., for which, an application for correction/modification has already been filed.

7. In such circumstances, this Court cannot enter into the merits of the case as the suit of the petitioner? is not registered and there is no illegality in the impugned orders. The Court is not inclined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.

8. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.