JUDGMENT V.K. Shukla and Suneet Kumar,JJ. Shiv Nandan and Ram Murti both sons of Late Matadeen are before this Court and their submission before this Court is to the effect that inter-se Sukhlal there is ongoing dispute being Original Suit No. 2757 of 2012, Shivnandan & others Vs. Sukhla, is pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and their submission is that over the arazi no. 8 area 0.5320 hectare situated at village Dhamur, pargana Sikandara, tehsil Phoolpur, district Allahabad, an attempt is being made by the Sukhlal and others to interfere into the peaceful possession of petitioners, as such, on the spot no interference should be made and no construction should be permitted to carried out. Petitioners have proceeded to mention that on the presentation of the suit in question an application for grant of ad-interim injunction has been moved and on the said injunction application order has been passed directing therein not to interfere in the peaceful possession of petitioners and not to change the nature of property in dispute. 2. The complete order-sheet in question has not been appended which would reflect that the said order in question has been extended from time to time but petitioners' counsel is contending that the said interim order stands extended, even as on date. 3. Petitioners have contended that during the pendency of the aforesaid suit in question Sukhlal has moved an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Phoolpur and therein his submission is that he has been raising construction over the plot no. 135, which is noway connected with the gata no. 8 which is the subject matter of dispute and in such a situation and in this background permission should be accorded for raising construction in question. This much is also reflected that on the said application being moved the Revenue Authorities were directed to submit the report and thereafter report in question has been submitted and in the said report categorical mention has been made that no construction whatsoever is being carried out in gata no. 8 and 9 and whatever constructions are being carried out, same are in gata no. 135. After receiving the said report Sub Divisional Magistrtate, Phoolpur has proceeded to accord permission to Sukhlal for raising construction. 8 and 9 and whatever constructions are being carried out, same are in gata no. 135. After receiving the said report Sub Divisional Magistrtate, Phoolpur has proceeded to accord permission to Sukhlal for raising construction. Petitioner at this juncture is before this Court and his submission is that in pith and substance the constructions are being raised over the gata no. 8 and according of such a permission is in the teeth of the injunction order accorded by court below. 4. The order dated 12th July, 2013, passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Phoolpur, clearly reflects that a revenue team has submitted its report that construction in question are not at all carried out in gata nos. 8 and 9 rather it is carried out in gata no. 135 and keeping in view such a situation permission has been accorded. 5. Once petitioner is factually disputing the aforementioned factum and submission of petitioner is that constructions are being raised in gata no. 8, which is subject matter of dispute in the pending suit and it is being carried out in breach of the injunction order, then this Court proceeds to mention that all such factual controversies as to whether the construction in question are being carried out in gata no. 8 or not being essential question of fact, the same cannot be adjudicated in present writ petition but certainly if it is the case of petitioner that construction in question is being made in gata no. 8 and same is in breach of injunction order which has been passed in his favour, then the grievance of petitioner can be very well looked under Order 39 Rule 2-A of CPC wherein action can be taken against the incumbent, who is party in the proceedings and even against the said incumbent, who have assisted in the injunction order being flouted, but as far as this Court is concerned, this Court is not interfering in the matter but makes it clear that petitioner should avail his remedy by moving an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of CPC for initiating the proceedings before the Court concerned. 6. With these observations, writ petition stands disposed of.