JUDGMENT B.D. Agrawal, J. - Kisan Painth, Banat district Muzaffarnagar is a registered partnership firm. One Saghir Hasan filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the name of the firm as its partner contending that for long the firm has held cattle market on the plots specified in the petition. This was done in Wednesday and Thursday every week. The plots narrated are Comprised in three respective khatas as under : (i) khatas No. 19-plot Nos. 1238, 1239, 1249, 1250, 1251 and 1256 to 1259. (ii) khata No. 155-ka. plot No. 1248. (iii) khata No. 155 kha. plot Nos 1252, 1253 and 1254. 2. On July 28, 1983, Saghir Hasan purporting to act for and on behalf of the firm applied to the Zila Parishad, Muzalfarnagar. for grant of licence to h dd cattle marked on Wednesdays and Thursdays as mentioned above. He expressed willingness to deposit the licence fee as required under the Bye-laws framed on June 8, 1966. The Zila Parishad declined grant of licence to the petitioner as prayed under the order dated January 9, 1984, the appeal directed against this order was dismissed by the Adhyaksha, Zila Parishad on February 2., 1984. 3. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated January 9, 1984 and February 22, 1984, and also mandamus directing the Zila Parishad to grant licence for holding cattle market on aforementioned plots in village Banat on Wednesdays and Thursdays subject to licence fee being deposited. The petition was admitted at the preliminary hearing on August 24, 1981 and interim order was passed on April 19, 1985, to the effect that subject to the conditions requisite being Satisfied including the deposit of the licence fee as required under the Bye-laws the petitioner may hold cattle market on Wednesday and Thursday every week. Special Leave petition directed against this order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on October 3, 1985. It was observed that the Zila Parishad may, if so advised, sock modification of the aforementioned interim order. 4. The Zila Parishad has filed counter - affidavit disputing the right asserted by the positioners on various grounds. Special Leave petition directed against this order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on October 3, 1985. It was observed that the Zila Parishad may, if so advised, sock modification of the aforementioned interim order. 4. The Zila Parishad has filed counter - affidavit disputing the right asserted by the positioners on various grounds. (Separate application have been moved by Ahmad Hasan, Smt. Hafizan and Mahboob Hasan for their respective Impleadment as parties and agitating against the right claimed by the petitioner to maintain the writ petition or to secure the interim relief. The grounds taken shall be adverted to by me as pass on to the comments. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents and the three applicants, who contended, inter alia, that the firm Kisan Painth has had no concern with the plots aforementioned am; it is not correct to say that the cattle market is held therein. It is disputed also that the plots belong to Saghir Hasan, as claimed by him. For the petitioner reference is made to a partnership deed dated December 30, 1974. The significant fact is that this does not enumerate the plots of land over which the partners stipulated to hold the market. Ia clause 4 of the deed the recital is that the land required for the market shall be contributed by all the partners or by anyone of them, as the case may be. Among the partners shown in the deed are Ahmad Hasan Smt. Hafizan besides Saghir Hasan and others. The contention inter alia is that the firm is not a legal entity for this purpose ; it cannot as such claim to be Bhumidhar of the plots and in so far as Saghir Hasan in concerned, the arguments advanced is that in consolidation proceedings as appearing from the judgment recorded by the Consolidation Officer dated October 27, 1984, the share of Ahmad Hasan applicant has been adjusted to be one Half in the plots comprised in Khata No. 19 and Smt. Hafizan has been found entitled to one - fourth share in those plots. The sharo of Saghir Hasan has been adjudged therein as 1/16. Smt. Hafizan joins Ahmad Hasan in this contention with this difference, however, that according to her the share on which she is entitled in these plots of Khata No. 19 is 1/2 and act 1/4. The sharo of Saghir Hasan has been adjudged therein as 1/16. Smt. Hafizan joins Ahmad Hasan in this contention with this difference, however, that according to her the share on which she is entitled in these plots of Khata No. 19 is 1/2 and act 1/4. In respect thereof she has preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), which is pending. According to her, moreover, the snare of Saghir Hasan is only l/4. As regards Khuta No. 155 - ka the assertion is that the plot comprised therein belongs to Smt. Hafizan exclusively and the matter is pleading in dispute before the consolidation authorities. The land comprised in Khata No. 155 - kha belongs to, it it asserted, and is possessed of by Smt. Hafizan alone as also denoted from the entry in the Khatauni of 1387 fasli. 6. It is worthy of note that, while Saghir Hasan purports to initiate this proceeding as a partner claiming to do so for and on behalf of or for the benefit of the firm, two of the alleged partners, namely, Ahmad Hasan and Smt. Hafizan have come forward strongly refuting this claim in their affidavits. Not only this, they assert that the land in question has throughout remained under cultivation and there is standing crop over the same According to this applicants, it has not been made use of at any point of time for holding cattle market. In support of this assertion they have sought to rely on extracts of Khasra ranging for the period of 1378 to 1386 faslis. 7. For Mahboob Hasan there is yet another point of controversy raised. His contention is that he holds a cattle market on plot Nos. 1272 and 1281 (Corresponding to old plot No. 1405) situate in Banat itself on Wednesdays and thursdays. Saghir Hasan besides others instituted Original Suit No. 127 of 1960 in the civil Court against Mahboob Hasan and others claiming permanent Injunction to restrain the defendants from holding cattle market on those plots. That suit was dismissed by the trial Court on September 30, 1963. The appeal was dismissed on October 21, 1964 and the second appeal filed by Saghir Hasan etc,, also failed as appearing from the judgment dated 26th August, 1971. That suit was dismissed by the trial Court on September 30, 1963. The appeal was dismissed on October 21, 1964 and the second appeal filed by Saghir Hasan etc,, also failed as appearing from the judgment dated 26th August, 1971. Thereafter Mahboob Hasan instituted Original Suit No. 259 of 1977 against Saghir Hasan and Zila Parishad sacking permanent injunction to restrain them from holding the cattle market within an area of 4 Kilometers from Plot Nos. 1272 and 1281 (corresponding to old plot No. 1405) aforementioned. Temporary injunction was granted in favour of Mahboob Hasan in that suit by the trial Court on November 16, 19/7 to the same effect and the same is operative still. Reference made for the petitioner to the order passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 3371 of 1977 on October 5, 1982, is besides the point and of no relevance since that revision arose, it will appear, from an order dated 6th December, 1977, directing implement of certain party and it was dismissed. From this it may not be inferred that the temporary injunction no longer survives. Significantly Saghir Hasan has himself 'along with Kishan Painth, the firm, instituted Original Suit No 270 of 1985 against the Zila Parishad and in the Civil Court wherein the plaintiffs have sought permanent injunction restraining the Zila Parishad from holding a cattle market within a range of 4 Kilometres of the plots involved in dispute in the present proceedings. This suit was brought on or about May 30, 1985 and is pending Still a fact disclosed by Mahboob Hasan, the applicant and not from the side of the petitioner. 8. From the narration of facts made above, it may not be doubted that the controversy ; rising is three pronged. To enable adjudication upon the writ petition it will have to be found whether the plots referred to in the petition are held for or behalf of the firm or by Saghir Hasan in capacity as the Bhumidhar as claimed by him. To enable adjudication upon the writ petition it will have to be found whether the plots referred to in the petition are held for or behalf of the firm or by Saghir Hasan in capacity as the Bhumidhar as claimed by him. The Zila Parishad does not dispute the right of a Bhumidhar in general to get licence for cattle market on the land held by him as such, but the parishad nonetheless asserts the right to regulate the holding of private cattle market in terms of the Bye-laws promulgated on June 8, 1986, placed on the record together with the supplementary affidavit filed on 27th September, 1984. The Court may have to find also whether the plots referred to in the petition are instead held by Ahmad Hasan and Smt. Hafizan as claimed by them, and as to whether these plots have been made use of for purposes of cattle market or as to whether there has been throughout standing crop therein. As to whether the petitioner Saghir Hasan may claim the right to hold the market despite injunction granted against him by the Civil Court in the action brought by Mahboob Hasan will also need be considered. There can be no effective or complete ad judication made of the matter ignoring the claim raised by Ahmad Hasan Smt. Hafizan and Mahboob Hasan after impleadment. These essentially raise question of fact. This Court will not ordinarily issue a writ where the petition raises disputed questions of fact, since the Court does not generally enter upon a determination of the question which demands elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right. The right claimed by the petitioner, it will appear is not capable of being established in summary proceeding under Article 226 requiring, as it does, a detailed examination of the evidence, as may be made in a suit. The object of Article 226 is the enforcement and net establishment of a right or title. This, it is true, is a rule of discretion and not exclusion of jurisdiction. Upon the facts the case is not such as to admit of being adjudicated on merits without the disputed issue of fact being thrashed of a probe made into the evidence. This, it is true, is a rule of discretion and not exclusion of jurisdiction. Upon the facts the case is not such as to admit of being adjudicated on merits without the disputed issue of fact being thrashed of a probe made into the evidence. In capacity of the petitioner there is Dominus litua no doubt but the dispute raised from the other side is so integrally co-related that it cannot be divorced and the Court cannot properly proceed relating the other side to a civil proceeding. The Zila Parishad, as contended on its behalf, finds itself in a fixed in face of the claim raised by Mahboob Hasan based on the injunction obtained in his favour, for instance, the Zila Parishad is unable on its own to decide whether to grant licence to the petitioner or to withhold the same in face of the restraint imposed in the matter of Mehboob Hasan. The petitioner has neither claimed nor it is possible to let the petitioner to hold the cattle market on the land in question without a licence from the Zila Parishad required in terms of the bye-laws the validity whereof is not in dispute before me. The Court cannot be oblivious of the fact moreover that the partnership referred to by the petitioner is not dissolved as yet and that Ahmad Hasan and Smt. Hafizan have refuted the claim of Saghir Hasan to maintain and Such action for or on behalf of the firm or the partners under the alleged implied authority. The petition has been admitted at the preliminary hearing but this was in view of the petitioner avoiding to implead any of those persons, though apparently they were necessary to be brought on record, The fate of the petition even at the admission stage may perhaps have been different if the entire range of controversy where brought to light at the stage. I leave the matter at this being not called upon for these reasons to express opinion in so far as the merits of the rival claims are concerned. 9. For the above the petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. Tho interim order dated April, 1985 in vacated. The applications made by Ahmad Hasan Smt. Hafizan and Mahboob Hasan are disposed of accordingly in terms of this order. There will be no orders to costs.