Judgment :- Heard the learned counsels appearing for both parties. The present revision petition is directed against passing of the final order of injunction pending the suit. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even though several documents had been filed along with the objection filed on behalf of the present petitioners herein/defendants in the suit, the trial Court while passing the order of injunction, without referring to any such documents, has simply observed that there is a prima facie case. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has raised an objection relating to the present revision petition being entertained by the High Court on the ground that the present petitioners have not availed of the alternative remedy available under the Civil Procedure Code. The learned counsel has further referred to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2004) 6 SCC 71 (Yeshwant Sakhalkar v. Hirabat Kamat Mhamai) and submitted that the High Court under Article 227 shall not interfere in such matters. 4. So far as the first contention is concerned, it is true that an alternate remedy under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of Code of Civil Procedure was available and the present petitioners should have filed an appeal before the District Judge. However, since the revision petition was entertained by this Court at the time of admission, it would be unjust to dismiss the revision petition on that ground alone. Of course, this Court could have directed the present petitioners to file an appeal and seek for condonation of delay. I would have also followed such a course, but, since I find that the trial Court has not referred to the various documents filed by either side, instead of directing the present petitioners to present an appeal before the District Judge, I am inclined to remit the matter for fresh disposal on merits. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the documents had not been marked, the trial Court was right in not referring to any of the documents. Even assuming that there is any such practice, since the documents had been filed, trial Court should have given opportunity to the parties, particularly to the defendants to get those documents formally marked. Even assuming that there is any such practice, since the documents had been filed, trial Court should have given opportunity to the parties, particularly to the defendants to get those documents formally marked. Be that as it may, since the documents are there, it is better for the Trial Court to reconsider the matter afresh and come to a conclusion in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of records from High Court. The Registry is directed to send the records within ten days from today. The fact that the revision is remanded shall not be construed as expression of any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised by either parties. 6. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected CMPs are closed.