JUDGMENT : Narendre Kumar Jain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Plaintiff-Respondent No. 2 Mst. Bhanwar Bai filed a suit for permanent injunction in the trial court against the defendants-Respondents No. 3 to 7. On an application filed by the plaintiff, trial court passed an order for maintaining status quo in respect of disputed property. The plaintiff thereafter filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. stating therein that despite grant of injunction order dated 24.05.2008, the defendants continued their construction on 25.05.2008, therefore, the same may be ordered to be removed with Police aid. Trial court vide order dated 24.05.2010 allowed the application and directed that Police aid will be provided for removal of construction of the defendants as per report dated 15.06.2008 of Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma, Site Commissioner. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was not a party to the suit, so-called construction belongs to the petitioner's school, which has been ordered to be demolished without hearing the petitioner, therefore, impugned order dated 24.05.2010 is violative of principles of natural justice. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not impleaded as party in the suit filed by the Respondent No. 2 against Respondents No. 3 to 7 and an order for demolition of construction of the petitioner with the Police aid has been passed. He further submitted that since the petitioner was not a party to the suit or application for temporary injunction, therefore, interim injunction order passed in the matter was not binding upon him, therefore, impugned order may be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submitted that the petitioner was having knowledge about injunction order passed in the case. When the construction continued, then a contempt petition was moved against the defendants including present petitioner, but he did not move any application to implead it as a party in the suit. He further submitted that the petitioner was not a party to the suit, therefore, he has no locus standi to file present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. He further submitted that the petitioner was not a party to the suit, therefore, he has no locus standi to file present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the petitioner was not a party to the present suit, therefore, interim injunction order passed by the trial court was not binding upon the petitioner. As per submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, so-called construction belongs to it, which has been ordered to be removed with police aid without hearing the petitioner. 7. During course of arguments learned counsel for the both the parties admitted that the petitioner has now filed an application in the trial court under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead it as a party in the suit. In case the application of the petitioner is allowed and school becomes a party in the suit, then a liberty can be granted to the petitioner to move an application in the trial court itself for recalling of impugned order dated 24.05.2010 or interim injunction order passed in the case. 8. In these circumstances, writ petition is disposed off with the following directions: "(1) The trial court will decide the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt/production of certified copy of this order. (2) In case petitioner's application is allowed, then it will have a right to file an application for recalling/reviewing impugned order dated 24.05.2010 or injunction order passed in the case, in the trial court itself. In case such an application is moved within 10 days from the date of allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. then the same will be disposed of by the trial court within a period of one month from the date of its filing. (3) Till disposal of the aforesaid applications, the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of disputed property."