Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.:— Heard Shri M. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner defendant no. 1 and Shri V. C. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Prabhakar Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, pjaintiff in Original Suit no. 1480 of 2011. 2. Through this writ petition prayer for quashing the plaint of O. S. No. 1480 of 2011 and/or of order dated 10. 9. 2012 passed therein has been made. 3. On the suggestion of the court learned counsel for both the parties have agreed for the disposal of the writ petition in the following manner. 4. All the suits i. e. Suit No. 1480 of 2011, 661 of 2011, 161 of 2011 and 983 of 2011 are consolidated and must be rjeard by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut OR by any other competent court to which District Judge may subsequently transfer the same. 5. In the suit in question i. e. Original Suit No. 1480 of 2011 arguments on temporary injunction application and on two applications by the defendant-petitioner, one under Order 7 Rule 11 C. P. C. and the other questioning the valuation/court fees as shown in the plaint have been heard by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut. The petitioner-defendant no. 1 in the said suit had also prayed that his applications should be heard and decided first however, learned Civil Judge declined the said prayer through impugned order dated 10. 9. 2012 and held that he would hear and decide all the three applications together. In my opinion it was not essential for the court below to decide defendant/petitioner's applications first. However, it is directed that while deciding temporary injunction application the court below shall deal with the objection of the plaintiff regarding locus and maintainability of the suit on the part of the plaintiff specifically, particularly keeping in mind definition, import and consequences of agreement/contract for sale as given in Section 54 Transfer of Property Act. 6. It is needless to add that the order on both the applications filed by the defendant-petitioner would also be reasoned. 7. It is reported that 1. 10. 2011 is the date fixed for delivery of order on all the three applications in O. S. No. 1480 of 2011. The date of delivery of order by the court below is postponed to 10.10.2012. 8. 7. It is reported that 1. 10. 2011 is the date fixed for delivery of order on all the three applications in O. S. No. 1480 of 2011. The date of delivery of order by the court below is postponed to 10.10.2012. 8. Shri M. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner states that an undertaking had already been given before the court below by the petitioner that he would not alienate the property in dispute for a certain period. (It is noted in the order dated 10.9.2012) It is directed that until 15.10.2012 petitioner will neither alienate the property in dispute (or any part thereof nor will make any construction/further construction nor will change the nature of the property in dispute in any manner. It is made abundantly clear that this direction of non alienation and non construction etc. uptil 15.10.2012 has got absolutely no concern with the temporary injunction application which has been filed in the suit before the court below and on which arguments have been heard and judgment is to be delivered on 10.10.2012. It shall not betaken into consideration in the said judgment. 9. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of. _____________