JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 15.07.2004. The order is in two parts, in the first part of the order, the application submitted by the respondent No.5-RIICo. under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. for dismissal of the suit, has been dismissed. Thereafter, the learned trial Court has proceeded to state on the basis of the objections raised by the defendant No.5 that the defendant Nos.1 to 4 are not necessary parties, as they have no connection with the property in dispute. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid objections, the learned trial Court has deleted the names of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 from the array of the parties in the suit. 4. Against the aforesaid part of the order deleting the names of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 from the array of the parties, the plaintiff-petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. The application under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. submitted by the RIICo. (defendant No.5) was dismissed and that order has not been challenged by the RIICo. (defendant No.5). 6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the plaintiff had filed the suit for injunction in which it was averred that the defendant Nos.1 to 4 were encroaching upon the land of the petitioner-plaintiff and by means of permanent injunction they be restrained from doing so. 7. As to whether or not the defendant Nos.1 to 4 are encroaching upon the land of the plaintiff and as whether or not the land in question belongs to the plaintiff is a question to be determined at trial so also whether the land stands acquired by RIICo., and the plaintiff has no right to file the suit. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the defendant Nos.1 to 4 had not raised any objections with regard to their being impleaded as parties to the suit and nor had they filed any application praying therein for being deleted from the array of the parties, therefore, the impugned order dated 15.07.2004 is liable to be set aside. 9. The impugned order dated 15.07.2004 to the extent that it has been challenged by the plaintiff before this Court is set aside. The order deleting the names of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 from the array of the parties is accordingly set aside. 9. The impugned order dated 15.07.2004 to the extent that it has been challenged by the plaintiff before this Court is set aside. The order deleting the names of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 from the array of the parties is accordingly set aside. 10. This Court had while issuing notice vide order dated 28.07.2004 stayed the operation of the order dated 15.07.2004. The order in question was of deleting the names of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 from the array of the parties. The effect of the order dated 15.07.2004 being stayed by this Court was not of stay of the proceedings before the trial Court, but only to the effect that the defendant Nos.1 to 4 would continue to remain as party to the suit, as the order for deleting their names had been stayed by this Court. 11. It is surprisingly that the learned trial Court did not proceed with the trial of the suit and kept the suit pending for awaiting orders from this Court. Thus, valuable time has been lost because of the aforesaid fault on the part of the learned trial Court in misinterpreting the order of this Court resulting in delays. In case, there is any ambiguity in the order, it is always open for the Court to seek clarification of the order through parties. 12. The writ petition as well as the stay application are accordingly disposed of.Writ Petition and Stay application disposed of as above. *******