JUDGMENT Rajan Roy, J. -- Heard. 2. A suit for partition has been filed by the petitioner herein. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. has also been filed. During pendency of the said proceedings this writ petition was filed on 8.3.2016 seeking the following reliefs : "1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Opposite Parties not to sale out, demolish or carried on any construction on the land/house in question which is situated at C-53, Sarvodaya Nagar, Lucknow. 2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Opposite Parties to decide the application accompanying along with an affidavit under order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC in Regular Suit No.2341 of 2015, expeditiously, which is pending before Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Lucknow." 3. This court on 8.3.2016 passed the following order : "Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record. Issue notice to respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Learned counsel for petitioner for the purpose of interim relief submits that the petitioner filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction registered as Regular Suit No. 2341 of 2015 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Lucknow in respect to house having Municipal No. C-53, Sarviday Nagar, Thana - Gazipur, Purana Than Chinhat, District Lucknow which is bounded as under: - East - Rasta West- House of J.P. Verma North - House of Sri Radhey Lal Sought - House No. 52 (Bawan) In the said matter, an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC has been moved. On 23.09.2015 the trial court passed an order issuing notice to the defendant to file their objection before granting ex-parte injunction. It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner in view of the said facts, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 allowed one Mohd. Suhail/respondent No. 5 who put his board in the property in question and also trying to demolish the building in respect to which partition suit has already been filed, as such the petitioner lodged a FIR on 01.03.2006. Accordingly, in view of the said facts and circumstances it has been prayed that respondents may be restrained from demolishing the house in question till the disposal of the application filed by the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction. Accordingly, in view of the said facts and circumstances it has been prayed that respondents may be restrained from demolishing the house in question till the disposal of the application filed by the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner and going through the record as well as taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, as an interim measure, it is provided that respondents shall not demolish the premises in question till the next date of listing or till the disposal of the application for grant of temporary injunction by the trial court whichever is earlier. And trial court is directed to decide the matter in regard to grant of injunction on the next date i.e. 06.04.2016 for disposal of the same, if not possible on the said date, then within a period of two weeks thereafter after hearing the parties. List in the week commencing 25.04.2016." 4. Notices had already been issued in the temporary injunction application on 23.9.2015. It appears that at the time of passing of interim order, as alleged by the petitioner, the defendants had not filed objections, however, learned counsel for the respondent No.5, who is present today says, that in fact steps have not been taken by the petitioner-plaintiff nor has the respondent No.5 been impleaded therein as a defendant, a fact which has been denied by the petitioner herein. It is also contended by the respondent No. 5 that in fact the property in question had already been sold out by the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 in his favour prior to filing of the writ petition, but by concealing this fact an interim order has been obtained. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that he was not aware about this fact. 6. If the petitioner was not aware about the said fact, it is inexplicable as to why he has impleaded the respondent No.5. Mere saying that name-plate of respondent No. 5 was affixed on the building, therefore, he has impleaded him is neither here nor there. This fact should have been enquired further whether the property had been sold out and accordingly recourse to legal remedy should have been adopted? In these circumstances there is no reason to entertain this writ petition any further during the pendency of the proceedings before Civil Court. This fact should have been enquired further whether the property had been sold out and accordingly recourse to legal remedy should have been adopted? In these circumstances there is no reason to entertain this writ petition any further during the pendency of the proceedings before Civil Court. It is, however, expected that the temporary injunction proceeding shall be decided by the concerned Civil Court expeditiously, say within the next 3 months. 7. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed, but without prejudice to the rights of the parties pending adjudication in the suit.