1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6484/2006 (Bachhraj Vs. State & Ors.) Date of order : 20.02.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Anil Vyas, for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Boob, Addl. Govt. Counsel. Mr. Ashok Chhangani, for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Jaisalmer upon application filed under Order 39 Rule 12 read with Section 151 CPC, which is said to be filed along with suit filed by the petitioner. The trial Court after considering all the aspects of the matter rejected the application filed under Order 39 Rule 12 CPC while holding that no prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiff- petitioner s there is no title in his favour. The 2 said order passed upon the aforesaid application was further challenged by way of filing appeal before learned District Judge, Jaisalmer whereby the learned District Judge upheld the order passed by learned trial Court for temporary injunction. The appellate Court has also found that there is no title in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. Both these orders are under challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that in this case when both the courts below have given concurrent findings, therefore, there is no question of granting any interim order or allowing the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a prayer that learned trial Court may be directed to decide the suit within stipulated time. It is also prayed that the interim order passed by this Court dated 22.11.2006 with regard to maintaining status quo may be extended till final disposal of the suit. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties. In my opinion, when there is no valid title in favour of plaintiff-petitioner and suit is still pending, therefore, no useful purpose will be served 3 for passing any order for maintaining status quo. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 22.11.2006 passed by this Court is vacated. However, the trial Court is directed to decide the suit within a period of six months. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun