JUDGMENT : Alok Mathur, J. 1. Vakalatnama has been filed by Sri Siddhartha Mishra and Sri Rahul Sahai, learned Advocates on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh and Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners, and Sri Siddharth Mishra and Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent nos.1 and 2 being threatened with dispossession and demolition of their property in the name and style of Chandan Hotel, situated at Village Sakhauli, Pargana & Tehsil and Police Station Tirwa, Kannauj had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the State- defendants, seeking to restrain from dispossessing and demolishing the property situated therein. The court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kannauj by means of an order dated 18.09.2024 passed an ad intertim injunction in the favour of the plaintiffs restraining the respondents-defendants from demolishing or taking unauthorized possession of the disputed property. It is after passing of the order dated 18.09.2024 that an FIR came to be registered under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 against Nawab Singh Yadav, Veerpal @ Neelu Yadav and Pooja Tomar. The investigations were conducted pursuant to the said FIR and according to the investigation report dated 11.11.2024, it came to the knowledge of the State- respondents that the property in the name and style of "Chandan Hotel" had been purchased out of proceeds of crime, and therefore by means of an order dated 24.12.2024 an attachment order was passed in exercise of power under Section 14 of the Act, 1986 by the District Magistrate, Kannauj. 4. The petitioners had put in appearance in the suit proceedings and also filed the written statement on 21.12.2024 alongwith an application for vacation and variation of the interim order dated 18.09.2024. In the meanwhile, the plaintiffs/ respondents moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C. alleging that despite the order dated 18.09.2024, the petitioners -defendants have proceeded to attach the the said property vide order dated 24.12.2024 and the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kannauj on the same day passed an order directing the State-respondents to release the seized property and directing them to comply with an ad interim injunction dated 18.09.2024. 5. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 24.12.2024, the petitioners had preferred an appeal in the court of District Judge, Kannauj, which has also been rejected by means of an order dated 13.01.2025. The District Judge, Kannauj has duly noticed the proceedings initiated by the respondents under the Act of 1986 and while dismissing the appeal has provided that the appellants therein may apply for permission for confiscation or vacation of the order dated December 24, 2024, before the Civil Judge (SD), Kannauj. In case of failure to do so, the Civil Judge (SD), Kannauj, shall proceed to comply with her order dated December 24, 2024. 6. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the District Judge, Kannauj in Misc. Appeal No.01 of 2025 (State of U.P. & others vs. Sudarshan Singh & others) as well as order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Kannauj in Misc. Case No.167/74/2024 (Sudarshan Singh & others vs. State of U.P. & others), whereby in exercise of power under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C., the petitioners have been restrained from confiscating the disputed property. 7. We have heard the respective counsels at length. We have also noticed to the fact that the suit proceedings were initiated by the plaintiffs-respondents apprehending dispossession of the property owned by them from the petitioners. At that stage, there is no dispute that neither that the first information report was lodged nor proceedings under the Gangsters Act initiated against the private parties. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, that an ad interim injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents on 24.12.2024. Subsequently proceedings under the Gangsters Act have also been drawn up and an order has been passed under Section 14 of the said Act of 1986 by the District Magistrate confiscating the property situated at Chandan Hospital followed by orders passed under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C. 8. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the application for injunction preferred by the plaintiffs is still under consideration before the trial court, where the petitioners after having put in appearance have also filed a detailed written statement bringing to the notice of the trial court all the relevant facts necessary for disposal of the said application. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the application for injunction preferred by the plaintiffs is still under consideration before the trial court, where the petitioners after having put in appearance have also filed a detailed written statement bringing to the notice of the trial court all the relevant facts necessary for disposal of the said application. This aspect of the matter has also been noticed by the appellate court, wherein it has been observed that it was open to the petitioners to be moved the trial court for vacating an ad interim injunction. 9. We have heard various grounds, which have been raised before us on facts as well as on law pertaining to the validity of the orders of the trial court on one hand, while on the other hand the validity of the orders passed by the petitioners in exercise of powers under the Act of 1986. 10. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered view that once the entire concepts of facts has been placed before the trial court and the application of the petitioners is pending for vacating of the interim order as well as for passing final orders on the injunction application preferred by the plaintiffs/ respondents, it will not be prudent for this Court to enter into the factual controversy considering that the same issue is pending before the trial court. 11. Learned Additional Advocate General has fairly submitted that suitable direction may be issued by this Court to decide the 6C application preferred by opposite party/plaintiff expeditiously. The opposite party also does not object to the said proposal. 12. In the light of the above and with the consent of the parties, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kannauj is directed to consider and decide the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C. preferred by the plaintiff with expedition. 13. Considering the fact that both the parties are present and they are undertaking to cooperate in the proceedings and all the pleadings have been exchanged but it is still kept open for the respondents to file any additional evidence or affidavits, if they so choose within a maximum period of 10 days from today. In case, such additional pleadings are filed, they shall be responded within a maximum period of 7 days thereafter. In case, such additional pleadings are filed, they shall be responded within a maximum period of 7 days thereafter. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kannauj is directed to consider and decide the said application on 28th February, 2025 on which both the parties shall appear before the trial court and an endeavour shall be made by the trial court to dispose of this application on the date itself and for any reason, it is not possible he may fix a date and conclude the proceedings within a maximum period of three weeks thereafter, in accordance with law. 14. We further provide that while deciding the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C, the trial court shall not guided and persuaded by the findings recorded by the appellate court in its order dated 13.01.2025 as well as the previous order dated 24.12.2024. It is also kept open for the parties to take all the pleadings, which are legally permissible and can be raised before the court at that stage. it is further provided that it shall be open for the petitioners to assail the validity of the order dated 13.01.2025, subject to the outcome of the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C. preferred by the plaintiffs. 15. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.