JUDGMENT : Rajan Roy, J. 1. Heard. 2. Petitioner's have challenged the order of the Trial Court granting temporary injunction against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 herein) and the Appellate Court order extending the said temporary injunction against other contesting defendants also that is the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. While affirming the order of the Trial Court, in spite of the observation made by them about no demarcation having been taken place under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and that partition of agricultural holding could not be done by the Civil Court as also the reference to ownership issues being involved, especially when the suit is only for injunction and its jurisdiction in this regard. 3. Considering the order proposed to be passed especially in view of the assertion of the parties represented today that opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 are performa parties though without expressing any conclusive opinion in this regard, issuance of notice to them is dispensed with. Shri S.K. Mishra, Advocate has already put in appearance on behalf on opposite party No. 3. 4. Considering the facts of the case as the suit is still pending before the Trial Court, this Court would hot like to make any observation's on the merit's of the issues involved as it may have adverse bearing on the rights of the parties in the suit. Suffice it to say that it is the admitted position that Gata No. 698 is a Minjumla gata and it is recorded in the revenue records as such. No partition of the said Gata has taken place between the Khatedars as of now as per revenue law's, nothing has been shown before the Court that it is otherwise. It is also an admitted fact between the contesting parties that the erstwhile tenure holder of the plot in question sold off 40 subplots of the said khasra to various persons at various times. There is discrepancy in the area sold off. The case of Shri Sudip Seth, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that some of the sales were in excess of the area which was available on the date of execution of the sale deed for sale. However, it appears in another sales similar situation was there, at least prima facie, at this stage. 5. The case of Shri Sudip Seth, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that some of the sales were in excess of the area which was available on the date of execution of the sale deed for sale. However, it appears in another sales similar situation was there, at least prima facie, at this stage. 5. Unless partition of Minjumla gata takes place, no demarcation is possible under the provision of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 nor was it possible under the erstwhile U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. In fact, in the earlier provision, there was no provision for partition/demarcation of Minjumla Gata but now there is a provision. In this scenario, it is a moot point as to how far the suit for injunction would be maintainable before the Trial Court. The nature of the land whether it is cultivable and an agricultural holding or abadi or its abadi Shamil Jyot will also have to be seen by the Civil Court while considering the issues referred herein above. Whether the question of title is involved or not is something to be seen by the Trial Court and this Court would not express any view in the matter at this stage. However, this Court does not proceed any further on this issue for reasons which are obvious, as stated earlier. It is true that some of the reasoning's given by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court while deciding the injunction matter prima facie do not appear to be acceptable at least at this stage in the absence of any exercise for partition of Minjumla Gata but considering the fact that the suit is still pending and the Court's below have passed an injunction order it would be in the fitness of things that neither of the parties herein who are also parties in the suit change the status quo with regard to the land in dispute i.e. Plot Nos. 4 & 7 nor alienate the disputed land. 6. Ends of justice would be secured, if the Trial Court is ordered to frame the issues in the suit within three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted. Thereafter, the suit shall be proceeded in accordance with law and the Trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to dispose off the same at the earliest say within one year from the date of framing of issues. Thereafter, the suit shall be proceeded in accordance with law and the Trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to dispose off the same at the earliest say within one year from the date of framing of issues. One of the issues which shall be considered by the Trial Court is regarding the permissibility of grant of injunction prayed for in respect of a Minjumla Gata where no partition has taken place nor demarcation has taken place as per the revenue laws and whether it would be possible to undertake an exercise for demarcation through the Civil Court in such a matter and how far it would be permissible in law. 7. It is open for the petitioner's to move an application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC if it is maintainable. 8. In the meantime, as stated earlier neither of the parties shall raise any construction or change the status quo existing in respect of plot Nos. 4 & 7. The parties shall not alienate the disputed property till disposal of the suit. 9. In the event the suit proceedings are not concluded within one year, it is open for the parties to approach this Court again. This arrangement would secure the interest of all the parties. 10. With these observation's/direction's this petition is disposed off.