CRP 148/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. N. Deka , Advocate and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P. Deka, Advo cate for Respondent No.1. For the order proposed to be passed, it not considered necessary to issue notice on the other respondents. It is submitted at the Bar that these respondents ha d even otherwise not contested the proceedings until the impugned order dated 05 .04.2011 was passed. The thumbnail facts necessary for disposal of the instant appeal are that Rup Ch and Agarwal(since deceased)was the tenant under the Respondent No.10 in the suit premises and during his lifetime the petitioners and the respondent No.1 & 2 an d others used to reside therein. Following his death in the year 1993 all of the m, except Respondent No.3 dispersed therefrom and used to occasionally visit the same. According to the petitioners, identified portions of the premises had bee n allotted to them as well as the other occupants. The petitioners and the Respo ndent No.2,3,4 and 9 are the children of late Rup Chand Agarwal and Respondent N os.5,6,7 and 8 are the husband and children of their deceased sister Krishna De vi Agarwal. On 20.08.2009 when petitioner No.1 in usual course went to visit the suit pr emises and tried to enter his portion thereof, he was obstructed by the Responde nt No.1. On being queried, the said respondent informed the petitioner No.1 tha t meanwhile he had purchased the entire premises from Respondent No.10. The pet itioners having learnt after necessary inquiries that in fact a sale deed dated 11.02.2008 had been executed by the Respondent No.10 in favour of Respondent No. 1, instituted Title Suit No.50/2009 praying for a decree inter alia for a declar ation that they are the tenants in common vis-à-vis the suit premises with separ ate distinctive right in respect of the part thereof in their possession. A decr ee for permanent injunction to restrain the Respondent No.1 his agents etc. from obstructing them from entering into their portion of the suit premises was also prayed for. An application for interim injunction in the same lines was also f iled which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No.89/2009. The suit was contested by the Respondent No.1 and proforma Respondent Nos.2,3, a nd 4. A show cause by the Respondent No.1 to the prayer for interim injunction w as also filed. The learned trial Court upon hearing the counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleadings and other materials on record by order dated 01.12.2009 restrained the Respondent No.1 temporarily from interfering wit h the petitioners’ possession over the suit premises. He was thereby also restr ained from demolishing the suit premises or from making any construction thereon till the disposal of the suit or until further orders. Being aggrieved, the Respondent No.1 took the matter in appeal and the learned lower appellate Court i.e. the Court of Civil Judge at Tinsukia, in Misc. Appeal No.1/2010 passed the impugned order interfering with the temporary injunction g ranted by the learned trial Court. Whereas Mr. Agarwal has argued that the impugned order signifies for all purpose s the dismissal of the suit before its adjudication on merits and that therefore interference therewith is called for, Mr. Sahewalla has urged that the learned lower appellate Court having passed the said order in the exercise of its discre tion and on an appropriate consideration of the materials available, this Court in absence of any error apparent on the face thereof ought not to interfere with the same. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the p leaded stands as noticed hereinabove in brief, this Court is of the considered o pinion that it would be in fitness of things if the learned trial Court is req uested to expedite the adjudication of the suit so as to ensure that the same is disposed of within a timeframe. In this premise, it is construed to be expedie nt to direct maintenance of the status quo of the suit premises till the disposa l of the suit or until further order(s) as may be passed by the learned trial Co urt if considered necessary depending on the exigency that may arise in the near future. Ordered accordingly. It is made clear that by status quo this Court means that the suit premises in existence, as on date, would not be either demol ished or intermentled with so as to irreversibly change its nature and character for all intents and purposes. In view of the interim arrangement, as above, the learned trial Court is request ed to dispose of the suit finally within a period of six months herefrom. Needl ess to say, the parties would cooperate in the expeditious adjudication of the s uit as ordered. As a first step in this direction, the parties would appear before the learned t rial Court on 27.05.2011 to take further order(s). The learned trial Court would proceed to adjudicate the suit without being influ enced by any observation earlier made at any level. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.