Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 9.10.2003 (Annexure P-1) passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Patiala allowing the application of the plaintiff-respondents for serving of interrogatories under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiff-respondents has filed a suit for recovery of rent in respect of the godowns known as Sethi Godowns and the plinths styled as Sethi Plinths situated in village Rasulpur Saidan, Patiala which have been given on lease to the defendant-petitioner. According to the pleaded case of the defendant-petitioner, the plinth forms part of the godowns and no extra rent was required to be paid to the plaintiff-respondents. In their application, the stand taken by the plaintiffs-respondents was that the plinths were already in occupation of the defendant-petitioner. Certain interrogatories like interrogatory 1 to 6 relate to that aspect of the case whereas interrogatory No. 16 pertains to the fact as to whether plinths were given on hire to the defendant-petitioner prior to construction of godown by the plaintiffs-respondents. On the basis of relationship of the interrogatories to the averments made by the parties in the pleadings, the trial Court had allowed the application on 9.10.2003. 2. It is the admitted position that order dated 9.10.2003 has already been complied with as reply to the interrogatory in the shape of affidavit by one Gurcharan Dass, District Manager, F.C.I. Patiala has been filed before the trial Court on 25.11.2003. 3. However, on 14.1.2004, the instant petition was filed to challenge the validity of order dated 9.10.2003. That order had allowed the application of the plaintiff-respondents for serving the interrogatories. Before filing the instant petition the defendant-petitioners have accepted the order dated 9.10.2003 inasmuch as reply to interrogatories has already been filed on 25.11.2003. The order dated 9.10.2003 stands complied with. The fact of filing reply to the interrogatories on 25.11.2003 before the trial Court has not been disclosed in the instant petition. It has further been pointed out by the plaintiff-respondents that there are directions issued by this Court for disposal of the suit within a period of 4 months in its order dated 21.10.2003 passed in C.R. No. 4364 of 2002 (Copy Mark A). 4. It has further been pointed out by the plaintiff-respondents that there are directions issued by this Court for disposal of the suit within a period of 4 months in its order dated 21.10.2003 passed in C.R. No. 4364 of 2002 (Copy Mark A). 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that once the order dated 9.10.2003 itself has been complied with by answering the interrogatories by way of affidavit dated 25.11.2003 the challenge of the order raised before this Court becomes academic. It is well settled that the Courts are not to express any opinion on academic matters without a proper lis between the parties. In this regard, reliance could be placed on a judgment rendered by a Constitution Bench in the case of Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. v. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd., 1983(1) S.C.C. 147 and S.R. Chaudhary v. State of Punjab, 2001(7) S.C.C. 126. The defendant-petitioner cannot accept the same. However, this fact was not disclosed in the petition filed for obtaining the equitable relief under Article 227 of the Constitution. No explanation is forthcoming as to why the fact of answering interrogatories vide affidavit dated 25.11.2003 has not been disclosed. It is well settled that this Court exercises jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution in case where manifest injustice is caused to a party invoking that jurisdiction. 5. In view of the above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, the plaintiff-respondents shall be entitled to costs, which is determined at Rs. 10,000/-.