IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7941 of 2004. Smt. Vimla Srivastava wife of Shri Daya Ratan Ji. VERSUS Additional District Judge No.3, Kota & Others. Date Of Order ::: 28/04/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J. Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. M.C. Gupta, Addl.G.A., for the respondents BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. Plaintiff-petitioner instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of disputed property in the trial Court. An application for temporary injunction was also filed, which was allowed by the trial Court vide its judgment dated 04.03.2002 and the defendant-respondents were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the property, in dispute during the pendency of the suit. However, on an appeal filed by the defendants, the Appellate Court vide its order dated 03.08.2004 partly allowed the appeal and modified the order of the trial Court to the extent that the plaintiff will not be dispossessed without following the due process of law. The said order of the Appellate Court is under challenge in this writ petition, preferred by the plaintiff. A notice to show cause was issued to the respondents by this Court on 10.11.2004 and it was also directed that meanwhile the petitioner should not be dispossessed from the house No.KR-235, Kota, till further orders. The said interim stay order is going-on for last more than three-&-half-years. The respondents have also not filed any application for vacation of the ex-parte interim stay order granted by this Court. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the reasons assigned by both the Courts below, I find that the ends of justice will meet in directing the trial Court to decide the suit itself within a period of one-year from the date of receipt of this order, and the interim stay order passed by this Court on 10.11.2004 may be allowed to continue during the pendency of the suit. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suit itself within a period of one-year from the date of receipt of this order, and the interim order passed by this Court dated 10.11.2004 will continue during the pendency of the suit. The cost is made easy. A copy of this order may be sent to the trial Court. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ashok/