FAO 17/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE IA ANSARI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AC UPADHYAY Heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel for the appellant, and Mr . AM Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent No1 . Heard also Mr. S Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, PWD, appearing on behalf of the remaining respondents. This is an appeal against the order, dated 10-05-2010, passed in Misc. C ase No. 07 of 2008, which arose out of Title Suit No. 08 of 2008, instituted, ag ainst the appellant, as defendant No. 1, by the respondent No. 1 herein, seeking (i) declaration of the plaintiff’s entitlement to receive a sum of Rs. 2,91,72, 646.61, from the present appellant, who was defendant-respondent No. 1 in the sa id suit, the sum of Rs. 2,35,01,830.65 being the principal amount and a sum of R s. 56,70,815.96 being the interest on the said amount, (ii) perpetual injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from receiving and collecting payment of an y further bills including earnest money and security deposit from the office of the State respondents herein, for, according to the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, a part of the work, allotted to the defendant-respondent No. 1, had been, under an agreement, styled as MOU, dated 25-08-2007, handed over, for execution, to th e plaintiff-respondent No. 1 by the defendant-appellant and (iii) attachment of the bills, which are, otherwise, entitled to be received by the present appellan t from the State respondents. By order, dated 07-08-2008, passed in Misc. Case No. 07 of 2008, learned Civil Judge, Karimganj, directed status quo, as on the date of the passing of t he said order, to be maintained in respect of the bill amount of Rs. 20,90,000/- , which was, otherwise, payable to the present appellant. By a subsequent order, dated 18-08-2008, the said direction, to maintain status quo by the parties con cerned, was extended, and it is this direction, which, we notice, was made absol ute on 10-05-2010 and it is the order, dated 10.05.2009, which stands, now, impu gned in this appeal. Broadly speaking, the defendant-appellant’s case is that the signatures on the MOU, dated 25-08-2007, are forged signatures of the defendant-appellant, the said documents are false and fraudulent documents and that no legal right fl ows from the said MOU. This apart, the defendant appellant too has made counter- claim, in the said suit, seeking a decree for recovery of about Rs. 1 Crore 74 L akha. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materia ls on record, we notice that the impugned order, dated 10-05-2010, has been pass ed restraining the present appellant from receiving the amount of the bill of Rs . 20,90,000/- only and as far as other sum or sums of money, payable by the Stat e respondents to the appellant, are concerned, there is no direction restraining the State respondents from making payment of the other remaining bills of the a ppellant. During the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the parties agree that the suit, in question, needs to be expeditiously disposed of so that the rights and liabilities, if any, of any of the parties concerned can stand finally adjudica ted. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justic e, while we, at this stage, do not interfere with the impugned order, dated 10-0 5-2010, we make it clear that it would remain open to the appellant to challenge the same, in future, if it becomes necessary. For the present, as has been agre ed to by the learned counsel for the parties concerned, this appeal is disposed of with direction to the learned trial Court to expeditiously dispose of the sui t, by holding day-to-day hearing of the suit, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the learned trial Court. In order to avoid any further delay in disposal of the suit, the parties are dir ected to appear, in person or through their counsel, in the suit, on 01-02-2011. As the impugned order relates to, and remains confined within, the bill(s) amou nting to a sum of Rs. 20,90,000/-, we do not, at this stage, express any opinion with regard to the legality or validity of the impugned order and do not interf ere with the same, particularly, because of the fact that the parties have agree d that the suit needs to be expeditiously disposed of in accordance with law.