JUDGMENT : Sunita Agarwal, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. The remittal order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the first appellate court in Misc. Civil Appeal No.02 of 2018 (Anurag Keharwani & others Vs. Neeraj Kumar Srivastava & others) is under challenge in the present petition with the only assertion that the first appellate court while remitting the matter back for fresh consideration on temporary injunction application, did not restrain the defendants from making further construction over the suit property. 3. The submission is that a representative suit after seeking leave of the Court under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure namely Original Suit No.26 of 2012 (Neeraj Kumar Srivastava & others Vs. Anurag Kesharwani & others) has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants restraining them from making any construction for encroachment of a Public Path (Gali) of 6 feet, the disputed property shown by letter v] c] l] n in the plaint map. 4. It is submitted that on the presentation of the suit, vide order dated 17.01.2012, the trial court had directed the parties to maintain status quo, after perusal of the documentary evidences filed by the plaintiffs to assert that the suit property is a Public Pathway (Gali) abutting the house of the defendants and the plaintiffs and other persons. 5. Further, the trial court vide judgment and order dated 21.12.2013, had allowed the temporary injunction application restraining the defendants from raising any construction over the suit property by recording two findings i.e. the plaintiffs having made out a prima facie case of the suit property being a Public Pathway and secondly, that it was necessary to protect the suit property till disposal of the suit. 6. These findings returned by the trial court had been upturned in the first appeal with the only observation that on two ingredients i.e. balance of convenience and irreparable loss to the plaintiffs, no findings whatsoever had been recorded by the trial court. 7. It is contended that the findings returned by the trial court of prima facie case having been made out by the plaintiffs had not been upturned by the first appellate court. Moreover, the first appellate court was well within its power to consider the evidence brought by the plaintiffs on record to seek temporary injunction. 7. It is contended that the findings returned by the trial court of prima facie case having been made out by the plaintiffs had not been upturned by the first appellate court. Moreover, the first appellate court was well within its power to consider the evidence brought by the plaintiffs on record to seek temporary injunction. There was no occasion for it to remit the matter back. 8. With these submissions, only contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the defendants may be restrained from raising further construction till disposal of the temporary injunction application, pursuant to the remittal order dated 27.11.2018 9. Submission is that in case, the defendants are allowed to raise further construction on account of any delay in disposal of the temporary injunction application, the nature of the suit property is likely be changed and inconvenience would be caused to all the persons who are having a right to access the said Public Pathway. 10. By means of the supplementary affidavit filed today, it is further brought on record that a proceeding for demolition under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act' 1973 had been undertaken by the Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad. 11. These assertions made by learned counsel for the petitioners could not be disputed by learned counsel for the respondent/defendants. He however, defends the order impugned for the reasoning given therein and submits that the suit property is part of the land purchased by the defendants, over which their house exist. 12. Be that as it may, having gone through the fact that the Original Suit No.26 of 2012 is a representative suit seeking to restrain the defendants from encroachment on public land and that the findings of the trial court of the plaintiffs having made out a prima facie case, had not been upturned while remitting the matter back, this Court is of the considered view that an interim injunction was required to be passed by the first appellate court till disposal of the temporary injunction application, so as to protect and preserve the suit property. 13. 13. However, in view of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners while upholding the remittal order dated 27.11.2018, it is observed that the defendants shall be restrained from raising further construction over the suit property shown by letter v] c] l] n in the plaint map till disposal of the temporary injunction application. 14. Simultaneously, the trial court is directed to make all endeavour to decide the temporary injunction application pending in Original Suit No.26 of 2012 (Neeraj Kumar Srivastava & others Vs. Anurag Kesharwani & others), as expeditiously as possible, preferably, on the next date fixed or on a short date to be fixed within a further period of three weeks, thereafter. 15. It goes without saying that no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to any of the parties and in case of any such adjournment, it would be open for the trial court to impose adequate cost upon the party seeking adjournment. 16. Subject to the above, the present petition is disposed of. 17. It is made clear that the trial court shall decide the matter independently without being influenced by any of the observations made here-in-above.