1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Mohan Singh & Ors. Vs. The ADJ, Bali, Distt. Pali & An. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4718/2005 under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of order : 14th February, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSITCE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Vikash Balia for the petitioners. Mr. Moti Singh for the respondents. --------- BY THE COURT:- 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. That this writ petition has been filed against the impugned order arising out of an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 for temporary injunction in civil suit pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Desuri. The T.I. Application namely Civil Misc. Case No.63/2004 was rejected on 8.2.2005 and the first appellate court vide order dated 17.5.2005 directed the learned trial court to decide the civil suit itself within a period of 8 months and till 2/3 then the status quo was directed to be maintained by the parties. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendants have approached this Court by way of present writ petition. 4. This Court by interim directions on 11.8.2005 directed the matter be listed for admission after the proceedings for cancellation of patta are decided by the revisional authority but in the meanwhile the trial court was directed to continue to proceed with the trial of the suit. No stay order was granted by this Court staying the proceedings of the trial before the trial court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits by way of application that the revisional authority has decided the revision petition No.1/2005 on 1.2.2007. The said revision petition was filed by the respondent Babu Singh S/o Guman Singh. The said revisional authority has found that on 18.4.2006 after partly allowing the revision petition cancelling the resolution No.4 of the Gram Panchayat dated 22.11.1971, the case was remanded back to the Gram Panchayat and after holding an inquiry, the resolution No.5 dated 6.7.2006 was approved and the earlier patta No.184 under resolution No.4 dated 22.11.1971 in favour of Teeja through whom the present 3/3 respondent Babu Singh S/o Guman Singh claims was cancelled. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that there is no justification for grant of any temporary injunction in favour of the present respondent. 6. Be that as it may, since the original civil suit is pending even now which was directed to be decided within a period of 8 months by the learned ADJ, Bali by his impugned order dated 17.5.2005 and against which there is no stay order of this Court in the present proceedings, it was expected of the learned trial court to have decided the suit itself by now. The period of 8 moths from 17.5.2005 is over long back and around 3 years have passed. 7. Therefore, it is considered expedient to dispose of this writ petition by directing the said trial court to decide the civil suit itself within a period of 3 months from today. It goes without saying that the position as to temporary injunction would abide by the decision of the suit itself. 8. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.17 babulal/-