CRP 283/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. PK Roy , learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No.315/2011, has filed this p etition challenging the order dated 17th August, 2011 passed by the learned Civi l Judge No.1, Kamrup at Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case No.155/2011 directing issuanc e of notice on the prayer for interim order made in Misc. Appeal No.20/2011. The petitioner/plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.315/2011 praying for declarati on of his right as tenant and also for permanent injunction. In the said suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed praying for an ad-inte rim temporary injunction against the respondent restraining them and their men, agents and servants from disturbing the peaceful possession over the Schedule-B properties, wherein notice was directed to be issued. Being aggrieved by not passing an ad-interim order, the petitioner preferred Mis c. Appeal No.20/2011 together with an application for passing an ad-interim inju nction, which was registered and numbered as Misc. (J) Case No.155/2011. In the said Misc. Case, the learned Civil Judge No.1 vide order dated 17th August, 201 1 directed issuance of notices and to show cause as to why an ad-interim injunct ion, as prayed for, should not be granted. No ad-interim injunction order has b een passed by the learned Court below. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17th August, 2011 and has prayed for an ad-interim temporary injunction re straining the respondents, their men, agents and servants from disturbing the pe aceful possession over the Schedule-B properties. This Court while issuing notice of motion in the revision petition has passed an order in Misc. Case No.2463/2011 directing that the peaceful possession of the petitioner in Schedule-B property may not be disturbed. Admittedly the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in the suit is still pending. That being the position, the present petition is disposed of directing the learn ed Trial Court to decide the said application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC u pon hearing both the parties. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent, at this stage, submits that the def endant in the suit will file the objection against the prayer made in the applic ation under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 11th Januar y, 2012. The learned Trial Court, within 3(three) weeks from the date of appear ance of the parties, shall decide the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C PC upon hearing both the parties. In view of the order passed today, Misc. Appeal No.20/2011 alongwith with Misc. (J) Case No.155/2011 also stand disposed of. The interim order passed on 26th August, 2011 by this Court will continue till t he injunction matter is decided by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial C ourt, however, shall not be influenced by the interim order passed by this Court and decide the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in its own merit an d in accordance with law. The revision petition is disposed of. No costs.