Sanjay Misra, J.— Heard Sri Vikrant Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice need not be issued to respondents no. 1 to 4, in view of the order being passed herein. Learned counsel for petitioners states that the petitioners are plaintiffs in the Suit No. 48 of 2013 (Yajan Agrawal and another Vs. Om Prakash Agrawal and others) pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Chandausi, which has been filed for partition. A prayer has been made to issue a direction to the Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Chandausi to decide the Temporary Injunction Application being Paper No. 6-C at an early date. In so far as the relief claimed by the petitioners are concerned, no such order requires to be passed by this Court since there is no material available on record to indicate the pendency position of cases before the Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Chandausi and as to how many older cases than of the petitioners, are pending before him. Therefore, this petition is finally disposed of by providing that the petitioner can file an expedite application before Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Chandausi for expeditious disposal of their application 6-C by giving reasons of urgency and in case such an expedite application is made the Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Chandausi should apply his mind to the reasons set forth regarding urgency and pass orders thereupon forthwith. In case the Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Chandausi accepts the grounds of urgency taken in the expedite application then he should ensure that any defendant who has put in appearance in the suit should be heard also on the application paper no. 6-C. However, if the trial court is of the opinion that the unserved defendants are necessarily to be heard then in that event the application of the petitioners if any for service of notice in accordance with the procedure prescribed may be considered and disposed of forthwith. No order is passed as to costs. _____________