R PETITmNER , a APPEARANCE: Mr. Puneet Ruparel, co Mr. Bhaskar Pyasi, cou unsel for the petitioner. 11561 for the respondents. respondents/ defendants. appeal preferred by the I plain% is carrying on his businEss by lunning Computef Education Centcr. EV€I1 after the death of his father 1'11 the year 2000, he was carrying on the said business. However,- the respondents started creating obstruction in his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit shop, as a result of which, a legal notice was sent in March 2010 and thereafter the instant suit for declaration of equal share in the property and permanent injunction was filed in May 2O 10. The plaintih' also moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 35 2 of CPC. The Trial Court Vide its order dated 28.6.20 10 allowed the application which was challenged in appeal by the defendants, and the appellate court, by the impugned order, has partly allowed the appeal. Thus, while maintaining the order restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property, the other part of the temporary injunction was vacated by the appellate court. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the plaintiff is carrying on his business and in case the plaintiii' is dispossessed by use of force he shall suii‘er irreparable loss. i L 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for theirespondents/ defendants would argue that the plaintiif is not in possession of the suit shop as he’is carrying on his business from some other place. He has placed reliance on documents tiled along-with the return to buttress this submission. 7. In document Annexure P—2, the petitioner’s father had allowed him to carry on business by his consent dated 12.01. 1991. Therefore, it appears that the petitioner has been carrying on the busineSs from the suit shop. However, at the same time, it is also kw established from the docnmant filed by the respondents vide Annexure R-3 85 R—4 (wrongly described as Annexures P—3 8r, P—4) wherein the address of the Laxmi Computer Academy has been shown as E-7, Sector—2, Awanti Vihar Colony, Raipur. 8. Dun'ng the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the defendants] respondents are creating obstruction by putting a lock in the suit shop from inside. If that be so, it prima facie appears that the house in which the ‘ respondents are residing has access to enter into the suit shop 4 nom inside and thus the respondents are in a better position to have a physical control over the suit shop. Admittedly, the plaintid is residing at a separate place as mentioned in the cause title. 9. In View of the above, it appears that ,,both the parties are claiming to be in possession of the property and at the same time, the plaintiff has also accorded consent to the Municipal Corporation for recording the name of his mother as owner of the suit house, after death of his father namely Laxminarayan Rao Mallewar. 10. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the dispute involved in the suit, it would be appropriate and in the interest of both the parties to get the dispute decided as early as possible and for that the trial Court is directed to dispose of’the suit as early as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. ‘Both the parties are directed to cooperate with the Trial Court in the proceedings. It is further i directed that during the pendency of the suit both the parties shall maintain status quo With respect to the suit property in all respects. Q 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is §na11y disposed of in the above tenns at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge wf / J7