JUDGMENT Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J. – Heard Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 2. At the outset, Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that he does not want to press the relief No.1 i.e. That by a writ of certiorari the entire proceedings of the suit which are nothing else than an abuse of process of law may kindly be quashed, therefore, he may be permitted to delete the relief No. 1 from the relief clause. 3. The request of learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is accepted. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is permitted to delete relief No.1 from the relief clause during the course of the day. 5. In view of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 is hereby dispensed with. 6. Submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that issue with respect to the land in question i.e. Gata No. 466M area 0.11 hectors situated at village Noorpur, Pargana, Tehsil and District Bahraich (now Pargana & Tehsil Payagpur, District Bahraich), has been finalised by this Court in writ petition No. 697 of 2015 (Cons.) : Om Prakash Singh v. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Bahraich/Shravasti & others, whereby this Court dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 24.9.2015. Now, once again, opposite party No. 2- Om Prakash Singh and opposite party No. 3-Tej Bahadur Singh have filed a suit, bearing No. 881 of 2015, for permanent injunction against petitioners with respect to the same land along with an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On receipt of notice, petitioners have filed objections on 27.11.2015. Subsequently, on 26.11.2015, petitioners have filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 for rejection of the claim of the plaintiffs/opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 but the trial Court did not pay any heed in deciding the application of the petitioners filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure prior to the disposal of the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs. 2 and 3 but the trial Court did not pay any heed in deciding the application of the petitioners filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure prior to the disposal of the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs. Therefore, petitioners are constrained to file the present writ petition interalia with the prayer that the court below be directed to proceed and decide the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure before proceeding to decide any other application including the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2read with Section 151 CPC. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners have vehemently contended that without disclosing about the filing of the aforesaid application under Order 7, Rule 11 , the private respondents succeeded in getting a direction from this Hon'ble Court for disposal of the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 . Further, the court below overlooked the fact that when challenge is made to the jurisdiction of the court as well as to the valuation of the suit and sufficiency of court fee, then the said issues are to be decided before deciding any other issue or application. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the case reported in : 2008 (1) ARC 133 : Bus Tata Taxi Tempo Drivers & Owners Kalyan Samiti v. State of U.P. and others and 2014 (7) SCC 215 : Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P. & others. 8. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and going through the record, I am of considered opinion that when the petitioners have already made an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC regarding jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit, in that situation, in view of the settled proposition of law, such an application is to be decided first before entering into the merits of the case or deciding any application, as non-disposal of such an application may put the party in disadvantage. 9. 9. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the application for temporary injunction filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC has not been decided till date, the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kaiserganj, Bahraich will examine and decide application filed by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11CPC prior to deciding the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, in accordance with law, after due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Petition disposed of.