JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. Heard Shri Manik Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri U.N. Misra, learned counsel, who has received oral instructions. 2. The prayer made in this writ petition is to the effect that a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued to the learned trial court below to decide the application moved by the petitioners-plaintiffs for grant of interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and further to direct the opposite parties no.2 and 3 not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the property in suit during the pendency of the said application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. 3. On the basis of instructions received, Shri U.N. Mishra has submitted that in fact after institution of the suit, the defendants have put in their appearances, however on various occasions, adjournments have been sought by both, the plaintiffs as well as the defendants. 4. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court by Shri Misra that certain allegations have been levelled by the defendants on the Presiding Officer of the learned trial court. 5. Shri Misra has also stated that the learned trial court is the parent court and on account of increased number of pending cases, an exercise is being undertaken by the District Judge, Lucknow to shift/distribute the cases amongst the other courts and it is in these circumstances that the learned trial court had passed the order on 10.11.2014 to the effect that in the light of the office report, the matter be placed on the date fixed under the orders of the learned District Judge. 6. Be that as it may, in a case where interim injunction application is pending, fixing a date after two months is not understandable. 7. However, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, though this Court strongly deprecates the tendency of levelling allegations against the Presiding Officers of the courts by the litigants, however, the District Judge, Lucknow is requested to transfer the proceedings of Regular Suit No.245 of 2013, Gulistan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Lko & Another vs. Manoj Kumar and others, to some other court of competent jurisdiction by Monday i.e. 15.12.2014. Once the case is assigned to some other court by the learned District Judge, the petitioners-plaintiffs will move an application for preponing the date fixed in the matter after serving a copy of the application to the learned counsel for the defendants. The service of notice of the said application on the learned counsel for the defendants will be treated to be sufficient notice on the defendants. 8. The learned trial court, thereafter, will prepone the date and fix the case before 20.12.2014 and on the date fixed, the application moved by the plaintiffs-petitioners for grant of interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC shall be considered and decided in accordance with law after taking into account the objections, if any, filed by the defendants. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of.