1 S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7278/2007 Kamal Kumar. vs. District Judge, Churu & Ors. Date : 7.8.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.M Shishodia, for the petitioner. Mr.SG Ojha ) for the respondents. Mr.BK Bhatnagar ) - - - - - At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is heard and decided finally. The only grievance of the petitioner is that no order was passed by the trial court for granting interim order, yet in the impugned order dated 9.7.2007, the trial court while issuing notice to the petitioner and the defendants in the application for grant of injunction in the suit directed to put a note on the notice to be issued to the defendants that they shall not alienate or mortgage the land in question. From the face of the order dated 9.7.2007, it is clear that putting that note amounts to passing an order of restraint against the defendants but without having any order of injunction. In view of the above, that note in the order dated 9.7.2007 is set aside. 2 Both the parties submit that the application for grant of temporary injunction is pending, therefore, the trial court may be directed to decide the same expeditiously. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to decide the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court. In view of the above, the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India has become infructuous and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya