ORDER Anjani Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner, who was defendant in the suit, aggrieved by the order dated 13th July, 2005, passed by the revisional court, whereby the revisional court allowed the revision filed by the respondent-plaintiff, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition.
2. Plaintiff, Mohd. Yusuf, the respondent in this writ petition, filed a suit impleading the petitioner as defendant. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application paper No. 6C with the prayer that a temporary injunction may be granted to the plaintiff. The trial court vide its order dated 20th May, 2005 has held that it is expedient in the interest of justice that no ex parte temporary injunction can be granted to the plaintiff and the injunction application may be disposed of only after hearing the defendant, it therefore directed issue notices on the injunction application to the defendant directing the case to come up on 31st May, 2005.
3. Aggrieved by the order dated 20th May, 2005, passed by the trial court, referred to above, the plaintiff-respondent preferred a revision before the revisional court. The revisional court vide its order impugned in the present writ petition allowed the revision filed by the plaintiff-respondent and set aside the order passed by the trial court whereby the trial court directed the issue notice to the defendant and granted temporary injunction directing the parties to maintain the status quo till the disposal of the suit. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional court, the petitioner-defendant approached this Court by means of present writ petition.
4. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-defendant submitted that in view of the amended provision of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh by U.P. Act No. 14 of 2003, even if the plaintiff has been able to make out a case, the revisional court should decline to interfere in exercise of. jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He further submitted that the trial court was satisfied that no such case was made out for grant of ex parte temporary injunction and that is why the trial court directed to issue notice on injunction application with the direction that the injunction matter will be heard only after the defendant is heard in the matter. The order which was impugned before the revisional court according to learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant, is not an order by which it can be said that the same is covered by the phrase "case decided", as contemplated under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by U.P. Act No. 14 of 2003. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and Ors. 2003 (3) AWC 2198 (SC), that no revision lies against the order of issue notice on the temporary injunction application, as the order of issue notice while application remains pending does not amount to "case decided".
6. After going through the order impugned in the present writ petition and having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the order impugned in the present writ petition is not sustainable under law. Therefore, the order passed by the revisional court dated 13th July, 2005 deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the trial court with the direction to decide the application for grant of temporary injunction after fixing a date for hearing on the application for grant of temporary injunction, within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before it,
7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 13th July, 2005, passed by the revisional court is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the trial court with the direction to decide the application for grant of temporary injunction after fixing a date for hearing on the application for grant of temporary injunction, within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before it.