JUDGMENT : 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today in court is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. A.K. Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sudeep Kumar on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. N.K. Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Tushar Hirwani, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13th April, 2018, passed by Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Lucknow in Regular Suit No.727 of 2018; M/s Agrawal Events and Exports Vs. Moti Lal Memorial Society and others. It is also prayed that a direction be issued to learned Court below to consider and decide the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC in a shortest period of time fixed by this Court. 4. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. N.K. Seth, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the following grounds: (1) The petitioner no.2 is not a party before the learned court below in the said suit, as such, writ petition on his behalf is not maintainable, (2). There is no authorization to file the writ petition on behalf of petitioner no.1 as the vakalatnama has been signed by petitioner no.2 only, as such, writ petition is not maintainable, (3) The petitioners have a statutory remedy of filing an application for vacation of ex-parte interim order under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC. The petitioners have also a remedy of filing misc. appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) CPC. The statutory remedies have not been exhausted by the petitioner before approaching this Court, as such, writ petition is not maintainable. 5. In support of his objections Mr. N.K. Seth, learned Senior Advocate has relied on the following judgments; (1). Jwala Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M/s Uflex Limited; [ 2013 (1) JCLR 594 (All)], and (2) A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs. S. Chellappan and others; (2000) 7 SCC 695 . 6. Mr. A.K. Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate replying to the objections raised by Mr. N.K. Seth, learned Senior Advocate has relied on the following judgments; (1). Jwala Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M/s Uflex Limited; [ 2013 (1) JCLR 594 (All)], and (2) A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs. S. Chellappan and others; (2000) 7 SCC 695 . 6. Mr. A.K. Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate replying to the objections raised by Mr. N.K. Seth has submitted that so far as the objections no.1 and 2 are concerned, it is to point out that in the supplementary affidavit dated 11.5.2018 the petitioners have annexed the order dated 23.5.2012, wherein the interim committee has authorized the petitioner no.2 to act on behalf of the petitioner no.1/Society for doing all necessary acts for the purpose of cases to be filed or pending for or against the Society in furtherance of bye-law 25. 7. Submission is that the petitioner no.2 is as such authorized on behalf of petitioner no.1 to file the instant writ petition and sign the vakalatnama. The vakalatnama which is on record with writ petition has been signed by petitioner no.2, as such, it shall be treated to be an authorization to file the instant writ petition on behalf of petitioner no.1 and 2. 8. It is further submitted by Mr. Tiwari that so far as the contention regarding statutory remedy available to the petitioners is concerned, it is to submit that the statutory remedy is not an absolute bar to avail the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The law is well settled right from the case of Whirlpool Corporation. vs. Registrar Trade Marks & Ors. 1998 (8) SCC 1 till today that in case there is any violation of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice or the order has been passed without jurisdiction, it is not necessary to exhaust statutory alternative remedy before approaching this court. 9. Submission is that in the present case the suit filed by the opposite party itself is not maintainable as the rights of the opposite party flow from the contract dated 23.7.2015 and the said contract is determinable as such in view of Order XXXIX Read with Section 38, Section 14 and 41 of Specific Relief Act an injunction is not permissible in case the contract is determinable. The learned court below without considering the said legal issue has passed an ex-parte injunction order. 10. The learned court below without considering the said legal issue has passed an ex-parte injunction order. 10. It is also submitted that the contract on the basis of which opposite parties are claiming their rights to hold possession over the land in question itself has expired on 31.3.2018 and this aspect of the matter has been also not considered by learned court before granting ex-parte injunction order. 11. In support of his submissions Mr. Tiwari has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Triveni Structurals Ltd. VS. M/s Newage Enterprises, Allahabad; AIR 1993 Allahabad 78. He has also relied on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of S.K. Gupta Vs. M/s Hyderabad Allwyn Ltd.; AIR 1998 Delhi 324. 12. Mr. N.K. Seth, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents in rebuttal has strongly contended that the opposite parties have a license in their favour and even if the said license has expired they cannot be forcefully evicted and their possession cannot be taken away forcefully without adopting due process of law. In this regard he has relied on the following judgments: (1). Yar Muhammad and another Vs. Lakshmi Das and others; 1959 AIR (ALD) 1, (2). Lalli Yeswant Singh Vs. Rao Jagdish Singh; AIR 1968 S.C. 620 , (3). Krishna Rama Mahale Vs. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao; (1989) 4 SCC 131 , (4). State of U.P. and others Vs. Maharaja Dharamender Prasad Singh & others; (1989) 2 SCC 505 (5). S.R. Ejaj Vs. T.N. Handloom Weavers' Cooperative Society Ltd.; 2002 (3) SCC 137 , and (6). Rame Gowa (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs and another. 13. It is also submitted that the petitioners have a right of easement under Section 60 of Easement Act. 14. I have considered the submissions made by parties' counsel and gone through the records. 15. The perusal of impugned order indicates that the suit filed by the opposite parties was admitted vide order dated 13.4.2018. Learned Trial Court while admitting the suit has proceeded to consider the temporary injunction application 6-C filed along with the suit. It has passed an ex-parte temporary injunction order restraining the petitioners from dispossessing the opposite parties-plaintiffs without adopting due procedure of law and has also restrained the petitioners from creating any hindrance in the possession and occupation opposite parties/plaintiffs over the property in question. 16. It has passed an ex-parte temporary injunction order restraining the petitioners from dispossessing the opposite parties-plaintiffs without adopting due procedure of law and has also restrained the petitioners from creating any hindrance in the possession and occupation opposite parties/plaintiffs over the property in question. 16. It has been strongly contended by both the parties before this Court regarding the possession over the property in question. On the one hand Mr. A.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the opposite parties were not having their possession over the property in question, as they are only event manager and organize an event on a given date and for which they bring their goods and after the event take away their belongings whereas on the other hand Mr. N.K. Seth, learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that the opposite parties have raised their permanent construction over the property in question and were in possession over the same which has been also disputed by Mr. A.K. Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate. 17. I am of the view that the learned trial court shall first consider and form a prima-facie opinion as to whether the opposite parties-plaintiffs were in possession over the property in question and only thereafter proceed to decide the temporary injunction application. This can be done only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners-defendants. 18. It is also to be noted that the question as to whether the suit filed by the opposite parties was itself maintainable or not in view of the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the contract dated 23.7.2015 was a contract determinable and in view of Section 38 read with Sections 14 and 41 of Specific Relief Act no injunction can be granted under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC also require consideration before any order is passed on the temporary injunction application. 19. Since the temporary injunction application is pending before the learned Court below this court restrain itself from considering the above mentioned issues as it may touch the merit of the case. It would be appropriate that the learned court below shall first decide these issues before proceeding to pass any order on the temporary injunction application. 20. 19. Since the temporary injunction application is pending before the learned Court below this court restrain itself from considering the above mentioned issues as it may touch the merit of the case. It would be appropriate that the learned court below shall first decide these issues before proceeding to pass any order on the temporary injunction application. 20. So far as the judgment and case laws relied by both learned Senior Advocates which have been placed before this Court are concerned, there is no dispute to the legal proposition on which the said case laws have been relied. 21. It is needless to observe that the statutory alternative remedy available to a party is not an absolute bar for approaching and availing extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. There are certain exceptions on which a writ can be entertained without insisting for exhaustion of statutory alternative remedy. 22. Since the very question of maintainability of suit itself has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioners which even goes to the jurisdiction of the court concerned to entertain a suit for injunction in the given facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that this court shall entertain the writ petition and direct the court concerned to decide the temporary injunction application in the light of the observations made by the Court. 23. Since the learned trial court has proceeded to pass an ex-parte order without hearing the defendants and restrained them from interfering in the peaceful possession and occupation of the opposite parties-plaintiffs, I am of the view that the order impugned in the light of the observations made above, is not sustainable. 24. As such, the writ petition is allowed. Order impugned is set aside with a direction to learned court below to consider and decide the temporary injunction application afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties to the case. 25. It has been informed that the petitioners being defendants have put in appearance before learned court below. They shall file their objections within three days from today. Mr. A.K. Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners undertakes that the objections would be filed to the temporary injunction application as per the order made above. Learned Court below shall proceed to decide the temporary injunction application within next one week thereafter. They shall file their objections within three days from today. Mr. A.K. Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners undertakes that the objections would be filed to the temporary injunction application as per the order made above. Learned Court below shall proceed to decide the temporary injunction application within next one week thereafter. In case need be the learned court below may hear the parties on day to day basis to decide the temporary injunction application. 26. It is needless to observe that the learned Court below shall decide the temporary injunction application without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court, in case it touches the merit of the case, in any manner.