CR No. 3 of 2010 26.4.2010 Present:- Mr. P.P.Chauhan, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Kaushal with Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, counsel for respondent No.1. This revision has been filed against the judgment dated 23.10.2009 passed by learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 05-CMA/14 of 2009 vacating the order dated 4.5.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Court No.2, Paonta Sahib in CMA No. 34/6 of 2009. 2. The facts, in brief, are that petitioners have filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against respondent No.1 in which mining lease in favour of respondent No.1 has been challenged. The learned trial Court had granted interim injunction on 4.5.2009 but the learned lower Appellate Court has vacated the injunction on the ground that proforma respondents No.2 to 4 were plaintiffs No.1, 3, 5 respectively. They are members of Gayatri Minerals and have already filed CWP No. 1485 of 2007 which is pending in this Court. In that writ petition, the mining lease in favour of respondent No.1 has been assailed and an application for interim has also been filed in the writ petition. The proforma respondents No.2 to 4 had full knowledge of pendency of the writ petition. They could not file the suit in view of pendency of writ petition. The fact of filing of CWP No. 1485 of 2007 has not been denied by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. He has, however, submitted that the writ petition No.1485 of 2007 and revision petition may be taken up together for decision. This request of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted for the simple reason - 2 - that the present revision is arising out of Civil Suit which is at initial stage and the parties will be leading their evidence in the suit. Therefore, revision petition cannot be decided with CWP No. 1482 of 2007. 3. I have gone through the judgments of the two courts below. The learned District Judge has rightly appreciated the material on record. The learned District Judge has recorded a finding that plaintiffs have concealed material fact of filing CWP No. 1485 of 2007 in the High Court. The learned District Judge has also held that plaintiffs under these circumstances are not entitled to interim relief. The view taken by learned District Judge in allowing the appeal cannot be said to be wrong. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any error of jurisdiction. Resultantly the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 4. In CMP(M) No. 59 of 2010 it has been stated that Partap Singh plaintiff No.7 had died on 14.8.2009 during the pendency of appeal before learned District Judge. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Order 22 Rule 3, Section 151C.P.C. was filed in the revision after the filing of revision, such application is not maintainable in the revision when death of plaintiff No.7 took place on 14.8.2009 during the pendency of appeal before learned District Judge. The CMP No. 17 of 2010 for interim stay is rendered infructuous in view of disposal of main revision. April 26, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.