CRP 212/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, peti tioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 13.04.2010, p assed by the learned District Judge, Kokrajhar in Misc. Appeal No.02/2009 arisin g out of Misc.(J) Case No.01/2009, whereby and whereunder, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner affirming the order dated 28 .08.2009, passed by the learned trial Court. The petitioner No.1 as well as the respondent claimed to be the wives of Late Santi Ram Das who was serving as an Assistant Development Officer of the A ssam State Development Corporation for Schedule Caste Ltd (the Corporation for s hort) at North Lakhimpur Branch and died on 05.08.2008. After the death of the h usband of the petitioner No.1, she came to know from the certified copy of the j udgment and decree of divorce dated 26.05.2005 and 01.06.2005 respectively passe d in Title Suit (D) No.5/2004 by the learned District Judge, Lakhimpur that her husband had married the respondent before her marriage, however, in the service book as well as other official documents, the name of petitioner No.1 is recorde d as wife of Late Santi Ram Das. Therefore, after the death of her husband, the Chief Personal Officer of the Corporation sent a Bank draft of Rs.10,000/- dated 13.08.2008 for payment of ex-gratia to the petitioner No.1, which was duly sanc tioned by the Managing Director of the Corporation and the same was duly receive d by her on 19.08.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 filed the requisite pape rs and documents before the concerned authority for payment of the C.P.F., Gratu ity, leave salary and other retirement benefits of her Late husband. But in the meanwhile, the respondent filed a Title Suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge , Kokrajhar being T.S. No.1/2009, inter alia, praying for a decree of declaratio n of right, title and interest over the C.P.F., Gratuity, leave salary and all d eath benefits payable by the defendants on the death of plaintiff’s husband, als o praying for a declaration that the defendant cannot disburse and pay the death benefits of Late Santi Ram Das to anybody except the plaintiff. Along with the plaint an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the C PC was filed by the respondent for granting temporary injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 and 2 for releasing/disbursing the C.P.F., Gratuity, leave sala ry and other death benefits of the deceased to anybody except the petitioner/res pondent herein. The same was registered as Misc.(J) Case No. 1 of 2009. In the T itle Suit, the petitioner No.1 was made a proforma defendant. Therefore, the pet itioner No.1 appeared and filed her written statement in the title suit. Also fi led written objection in Misc.(J) Case No.1/2009 praying for dismissing both the Title Suit No.1/2009 as well as the Misc.(J) Case NO.1/2009. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties in Misc.(J) Case No.1/ 2009 vide order dated 16.03.2009 directed the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of disbursing death benefits of deceased Late Santi Ram Das until furthe r order. The order dated 16.03.2009 was made absolute by subsequent order dated 28.08.2009. Challenging the order dated 28.08.2009, the present petitioner prefe rred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Kokrajhar and the learned Appe llate Court vide order dated 13.04.2010 dismissed the appeal by affirming the or der dated 28.08.2009 passed by the learned trial Court. The present revision pet ition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 13.04.2010. I have heard Mr. P.P. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the petition ers. On perusal of the impugned injunction orders both original and appellate , I am of the opinion that the same needs no interference. However, in the inter est of justice, and considering the matter which relates to disbursement of the death benefits to the successor of the deceased husband of the petitioner as wel l as respondent No.1, I direct the learned trial Court to dispose of the Title S uit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 6 (six) months fr om the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The revision petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. No costs.