Shri Narayan Shukla,J. Heard Mr.Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.N.K.Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Sachin Garg, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 2. Through the instant writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 9.4.2008 (Annexure No.11), passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow on the application for temporary injunction registered as Application No.6-c filed in Regular Suit No.536 of 2008:Sudhir S.Halwasiya versus Rakesh Pandey C.E.O. Kaya Merico, whereby the trial court issued direction to the parties to maintain status quo on the spot, as also the order dated 10.4.2008, passed by the Civil Judge (South) (Junior Division), Lucknow on the application for temporary injunction registered as 6-c filed in Original Suit No.85 of 2008:Sudhir Halwasiya versus Surendra Kumar Setia, whereby the trial court has restrained the defendants from sub-letting out the property in dispute and handing over the possession to others. 3. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 10.4.2008, passed on the application No.C-13 moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of the suit being under value and barred by the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (d). 4. Briefly, the facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are stated as under:- 5. The petitioners entered into a tenancy agreement with Uma Shanker Halwasiya and Sudhir Halwasiya (opposite party No.3) for 400 sq.ft. of shop situated at Halwasiya Court, 11 Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Hazratganj, Lucknow on 10.1.1994. In terms of agreement the petitioners were granted right to remove the common wall intervening the rented portion and portion owned by the petitioners themselves and thus in terms of tenancy agreement they have been in occupation and possession over the rented area alongwith their own area. The terms of agreement provided that the tenants shall use the shop in question for business purposes only and not for other purposes. In July, 2007, in furtherance of their business, the petitioners negotiated with M/s. Kaya Skin Care Limited of Mumbai for opening of an outlet. The terms of agreement provided that the tenants shall use the shop in question for business purposes only and not for other purposes. In July, 2007, in furtherance of their business, the petitioners negotiated with M/s. Kaya Skin Care Limited of Mumbai for opening of an outlet. After negotiations they entered into a franchise agreement on 24.10.2007 in order to start franchise and carried out some renovation and alteration in the petitioners' owned portion as well as tenant's portion, during which the petitioners made some substantial changes in the internal lay out as without which it would not have been possible for them to carry out franchise of M/s.Kaya Skin Care Limited. In this manner they started franchise in the month of December, 2007. 6. The petitioners' case is that since they had been getting the good response from the customers, the respondent No.3 approached them and insisted to include him as a partner on profit basis, but the petitioners' refused to accept his demand, therefore, the respondent No.3 started threatening and harassing the petitioners, in furtherance of which he also filed a Suit for permanent injunction, which is registered as Regular Suit No.85 of 2008, to restrain the petitioners from transferring the possession of property, which had been let out to the petitioners. The respondent No.3/plaintiff also prayed to restrain the petitioners from sub letting the property to someone else. 7. The trial court issued notices to the respondents. Since the trial court did not dispose of the application, rather issued the notices to the defendants, the respondent No.3/plaintiff filed a writ petition before this court being writ petition No.1448 (MS) of 2008. 8. In the said writ petition the petitioners also put in appearance and submitted that they have moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, which is liable to be decided first before disposal of the application for temporary injunction. 9. After considering the rival submissions of the parties this court by means of order dated 19.3.2008 disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the trial court "to dispose of the application registered as application No.Ga-6 and objections filed by the opposite party on 25.3.2008 and in case it is not possible for any reason, same shall be decided by 15.4.2008. In the meantime the parties shall maintain status quo as it exist today." 10. In the meantime the parties shall maintain status quo as it exist today." 10. The petitioners filed the detailed objection against the maintainability of the suit as well as application moved under Order 39 Rues 1 and 2 CPC on the ground that no perpetual injunction can be granted by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 41 of the specific relief Act. 11. The trial court heard both the applications; first application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC by the respondent/plaintiff and Second under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by the petitioners/defendants and fixed the date for order on 10.4.2008. 12. In the meantime on 9th of April, 2008 the respondent No.3 preferred another suit for permanent injunction on identical facts before the Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Lucknow which is registered as Regular Suit No.536 of 2008 to restrain the Chief Executive Officer, Kaya Merico Limited, Mumbai to enter into forcible possession of area of 400 sq.ft. over which the petitioners' are running the franchise of Kaya Skin Clinic. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the facts of the suit No.536 of 2008 are identical to the facts of Regular Suit No.85 of 2008. The learned Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Lucknow granted the interim injunction in the said suit on 9.4.2008 (Annexure No.11). 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial court rejected the petitioners'/defendants' application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in Regular Suit No.85 of 2008, on the ground that at this stage no cause of action has arisen as till that date premise in question was not let out, therefore, the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 are not attracted. In the order dated 10th of April, 2008 the learned Civil Judge has observed that the plaintiff has only asserted that the defendants wish to sub let the property in dispute to M/s. Kaya Skin Care Clinic, but it was not let out, therefore, no cause of action has arisen. 15. It is further contended by the petitioners' that in Regular Suit No.536 of 2008, the respondent No.3 has not made any reference of earlier suit No.85 of 2008, filed by him pending before the respondent No.2, nor did he disclose the order passed by this court on 19.3.2008 issuing direction to the parties to maintain status quo. 15. It is further contended by the petitioners' that in Regular Suit No.536 of 2008, the respondent No.3 has not made any reference of earlier suit No.85 of 2008, filed by him pending before the respondent No.2, nor did he disclose the order passed by this court on 19.3.2008 issuing direction to the parties to maintain status quo. Thus, the petitioners asserted that the Regular Suit No.536 of 2008 is based on material concealment of facts, in which the respondent No.3 also succeeded to get the temporary injunction. The petitioners further adverted that the conduct of the respondent No.3 is based on fraud which was pointed out by the petitioners' counsel to the learned trial court, but the trial court rejected the petitioners' application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. in cryptic manner. They further submitted that no ingredients for grant of temporary injunction were available to the learned trial court, as the court itself observed in its order passed on the application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 that on the date of order, there was no sub letting of the property in dispute by the petitioners, but the court has been pleased to grant temporary injunction with contradictory observation. 16. Thus, it is stated that the conduct of the respondent No.3, as aforesaid, does not entitle him to get any order of injunction as is provided under Section 43 of the specific relief Act, 1963. He further submits that the Regular suit No.536 of 2008 filed by the respondent No.3/plaintiff is absolutely an abuse of process of the court, more so, based on concealment of fact. Therefore, a writ of prohibition be issued to the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Lucknow prohibiting him to proceed with the Regular Suit No.536 of 2008. They further submit that on the basis of his successive suit filed by the respondent No.3/plaintiff on the identical facts, the regular suit No.85 of 2008 also does not deserve to proceed for the relief sought therein. 17. Per contra, the opposite party No.3 (Landlord) has submitted that on the event of declaration of vacancy of the shop in question he had given his consent for allotment of shop to the petitioners on the basis of a rent agreement dated 10th of January, 1994, in which the petitioners agreed to use the shop in question for business purposes only and not for other purposes. Thus, finally it was allotted to the petitioners by the competent authority on 20.6.1994 and the possession was handed over to them. The petitioners also started business of selling clothes. However on 10th of March, 2008, the answering respondent came to know that the petitioners' were negotiating to sub-let the shop in question to M/s.Kaya Skin Care and they are going to open Kaya Skin Care in the shop in question. Therefore, the answering respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction before the court of Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Lucknow i.e. registered as Regular Suit No.85 of 2008, in which he also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. The learned trial court was pleased to issue notices on the said application. Since no interim injunction was granted, the answering respondent filed a writ petition being writ petition No.1448 (MS) of 2008 before this court. This court by means of order dated 19th of March, 2008 disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the parties to maintain status quo. Pursuant to the order passed by this court the trial court heard the application for temporary injunction moved in regular suit No.85 of 2008 as well as objection filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and disposed of the applications by means of order dated 10.4.2008, whereby he granted interim injunction in favour of the answering respondent and rejected the petitioners' application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The answering respondent also admits filing of regular Suit No.536 of 2008, however, he raised objection against the maintainability of the the suit on the several grounds; firstly the order dated 10.4.2008, passed by the trial court is appellable under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC; secondly the order passed on the application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is revisable by the learned District Judge. Thus, it is stated that the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of availability of the statutory remedy. Thus, it is stated that the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of availability of the statutory remedy. So far as the Regular Suit No.536 of 2008 filed by the answering respondent is concerned, it is stated that the petitioners are not party in the said suit, therefore, they cannot be said to be the aggrieved persons against the order dated 9.4.2008 and therefore, they have no locus to challenge the same before this court without adopting the statutory remedy available under the law. 18. In reply of the writ petition on merit the answering respondent has submitted that the petitioners' were allotted the shop in question for business of clothes and they were not permitted to sub let it to others, but they have done so, which is purely the violation of terms of agreement. 19. The learned counsel for the answering respondent also drew attention towards the order passed by this court in the instant writ petition on 24.4.2008, whereby this court has recorded the undertaking of the petitioners in the following manner and claims that the same has been violated in clear terms. The relevant operative portion of the order is quoted hereunder:- "Learned counsel for the petitioners gives an undertaking that they will not deliver the possession of the said property in favour of anyone provided the opposite parties, including, Station House Officer and Sub-Inspector will not interfere in the existing business, which is being run by the petitioners from the said shop. The interim injunction order dated 10.4.2008 is modified to the above extent." 20. The learned counsel for the answering respondent submits that despite their aforesaid undertaking that they will not deliver the possession of the said property in favour of the any one, they delivered the possession in favour of M/s.Kaya Skin Care, which is in violation of the orders of the court. Thus, they have disobeyed the order passed by this court, therefore, they are not entitled to any relief as stated in the writ petition. 21. Thus, they have disobeyed the order passed by this court, therefore, they are not entitled to any relief as stated in the writ petition. 21. So far as the filing of subsequent suit registered as Regular Suit No.536 of 2008 before the Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) is concerned, it is stated by the respondent No.3 that there is no legal impediment to file the suit No.536 of 2008 and since the trial court found that the necessary ingredients for grant of interim injunction are available, it granted so. 22. Learned counsel for both the parties raised their arguments also on the merit of the applications i.e application for temporary injunction and application for dismissal of the suit, but at this stage without disputing the fact of sub letting of the premises in question to M/s. Kaya Skin Care, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that M/s. Kaya Skin Care has vacated the premises and now under the terms of tenancy agreement the premises in question is under the possession of petitioners and as per the petitioners' undertaking recorded by this court they are not going to sub let the premises in question to others. 23. The learned counsel for the respondents also submits that after eviction of the premises by M/s. Kaya Skin Care, the respondent is not pursuing the said suit No.536 of 2008 and to his knowledge it has been dismissed in default. 24. The learned counsels for the parties also cited several decisions rendered on the point of grant of interim injunction as well as on the point of dismissal of the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, but keeping in view the fact that Regular Suit No.536 of 2008 has been dismissed and answering respondent does not intend to pursue it as the defendant of the said suit has vacated the premises in question, I am of the view that application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 has lost its relevance. 25. So far as the order of temporary injunction granted in Regular Suit No.85 of 2008 is concerned definitely it is appellable under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC, therefore, instead of adjudicating upon it, I feel it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal, if they wish so, against the order of temporary injunction. 25. So far as the order of temporary injunction granted in Regular Suit No.85 of 2008 is concerned definitely it is appellable under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC, therefore, instead of adjudicating upon it, I feel it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal, if they wish so, against the order of temporary injunction. Accordingly liberty is granted and the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Lucknow to dispose of the Suit No.85 of 2008 expeditiously with the cooperation of the parties without giving adjournment to either of the parties unless cogent reason is there. 26. I am also informed that the respondent has filed the suit for ejectment of petitioners/tenants on the ground of violation of terms of agreement, therefore, I hereby observe that the said suit shall be decided on its own merit without being influenced with any observation made in this order. 27. In the aforesaid terms the writ petition is disposed of finally. ________________