JUDGMENT Dr. Vijay Pratap Singh is complaining before this Court that earlier the predecessor of the City Magistrate has proceeded to put a restraint order and then on all correct facts being apprised, the said restraint order put on raising of construction, has been recalled by order dated 30 April 2016 and the grievance is that thereafter once again with the change of official even without referring to the earlier order a fresh restraint order has been passed taking recourse to an order of temporary injunction passed. 2. Petition is contending that so far as the Plot No. 44, Area 116.66 Sq. yard (97.53 sq.m.) is concerned, it has a larger area and a very minimum area is engaged in the litigation in question and in view of this in the garb of the fact that injunction order is there such a restraint order could not have been put as it has been done in the present case. 3. The fact of the matter is that as to whether the constructions in question that are being proposed to be raised by the petitioner falls within the area that has been described in the plaint, is essentially a question of fact and it is reflected from the record, that earlier the predecessor of the City Magistrate has proceeded to lift the aforementioned restraint order and thereafter without hearing the petitioner another order has been passed. 4. In view of the fact, we proceed to pass an order directing the City Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar to reconsider and find out as to whether the property in question that has been purchased by the petitioner falls within the area that is under litigation and as to whether the injunction order that has been passed will come in the way of the petitioner in any way or not. Needless to state that the said decision be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. This decision under challenge shall abide by the fresh orders passed by the authority concerned. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.