Pradeep Kant and Ritu Raj Awasthi,JJ. - Counter affidavit filed to the affidavit filed in support of the impleadment application is taken on record. Heard Sri Pankaj Pandey appearing for the petitioners as well as Sri Rama Kant Dixit holding brief of Sri Girdhari Lal Shukla, appearing for the applicant seeking impleadment and Sri A.K. Bhatnagar for respondents no.1 to 3. 2. The facts which are relevant for the purpose in the writ petition are that Baba Prithavi Nath Mahadev Temple is situated in Village- Pachran, Post Jhalidham, Pargana, Tehsil and District Gonda, over which a dispute regarding management occurred and a suit no.67 of 1985 was filed by Sri Mahadeo under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was filed in the year 1985 and on 4.4.2007 the Civil Court appointed the District Magistrate, Gonda as receiver of the said temple. On 21.5.2007 the District Magistrate took over the charge of the temple. Against the appointment of receiver F.A.F.O. No.389 of 2007 was filed by Sita Ram and others. The aforesaid suit no.67 of 1985 was dismissed on 19.11.2008 and the interim order dated 4.4.2007 whereby the District Magistrate, Gonda was appointed receiver, was discharged on specific terms. It is further submitted that a writ petition was also filed against the interim order dated 4.4.2007, which too dismissed on 26.11.2008. 3. Before filing of the F.A.F.O., the petitioners had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.10809 (M/B) of 2009 claiming the relief that the charge of the temple be directed to be delivered to the petitioners, as suit stands dismissed. 4. This writ petition was dismissed by this Court after observing that in presence of F.A.F.O. which was pending in the High Court, the present petition has been filed which is not maintainable. Opportunity was given to the petitioners' to raise their grievance in the pending F.A.F.O. and also take appropriate steps before the appropriate forum. It appears that thereafter the F.A.F.O. has also been dismissed in default. 5. Against the order dated 19.11.2008 whereby the Civil Suit was dismissed opposite party preferred F.A.F.O. No.168 of 2008 (Shankar Dayal and another Versus Kailash Nath Mishra and others) which has also been dismissed in default on 15.4.2010. It appears that thereafter the F.A.F.O. has also been dismissed in default. 5. Against the order dated 19.11.2008 whereby the Civil Suit was dismissed opposite party preferred F.A.F.O. No.168 of 2008 (Shankar Dayal and another Versus Kailash Nath Mishra and others) which has also been dismissed in default on 15.4.2010. It is after dismissal of the aforesaid appeal in default, the present writ petition again has been filed by the petitioners claiming that in pursuance of the order passed in the civil suit by the trial court, the District Magistrate, who was appointed as receiver, has no right to continue further, therefore, the District Magistrate, be directed to hand over charge of the temple to the petitioner from whom the charge was taken. 6. Sri Rama Kant Dixit holding brief of Sri Girdhari Lal Shukla, who has moved an application seeking impleadment of one Chedi Giri, says that the restoration application has been filed in the aforesaid F.A.F.O. on 28.04.2010 and that in the meantime one Sita Ram has also moved an application for restoration and possession under Section 144 of the C.P.C. in which the present petitioner has been impleaded as opposite party. Chedi Giri has also filed objections. 7. The controversy in the aforesaid writ petition is regarding the continuance of the District Magistrate to continue as Receiver despite the interim order passed by the civil court having been discharged and there being no directive of the Court to allow him to continue as such. 8. In normal course if the receiver is appointed by the Civil Court and the said order is recalled or discharged or set aside, the possession/charge is to be handed over to the person/persons from whom receiver had taken the charge. In the charge memo dated 21.5.2007 it has been stated that Sita Ram and others have been dispossessed from the land and District Magistrate has taken the charge. 9. It prima-facie, appears that the charge was taken from Sita Ram, and some other persons, but their names have not been disclosed in the charge memo. In any case the District Magistrate can not be allowed to continue as Receiver. 10. The petitioner, however, submits that he was also the person along with Sita Ram, from whom the charge of the temple was taken by the Receiver, therefore, he is also entitled to take the charge. 11. In any case the District Magistrate can not be allowed to continue as Receiver. 10. The petitioner, however, submits that he was also the person along with Sita Ram, from whom the charge of the temple was taken by the Receiver, therefore, he is also entitled to take the charge. 11. We do not find any reason to keep the matter pending in the High Court, as this controversy can not be decided in writ jurisdiction, more so, when an application for restoration under Section 144 C.P.C, has already been moved and is pending consideration. 12. We, under the circumstances, dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the Additional District Judge-II, Gonda, to consider and dispose of the application moved under Section 144 C.P.C, expeditiously, after giving proper opportunity to the parties concerned, say within a maximum period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. All the parties are directed to ensure their cooperation before the courts below in disposing of the said application. 13. With the aforesaid directions/observations this petition stands disposed of finally.