1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6543/2008 Suraj Mal Versus The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sri Madhoupr & Others Date of Order :: 16th July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Dharmendra Barala for the petitioner BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 3rd July, 2008, whereby the trial court refused to pass an interim ex-parte injunction order in his favour during the pendency of the application for temporary injunction. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he filed a suit for permanent injunction alongwith an application for temporary injunction wherein no written statement or reply to T.I. application was filed by defendants. One another person Shrawan 2 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The trial court instead of deciding the application for temporary injunction adjourned the case for filing reply to the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and also refused to pass any interim order on the application for temporary injunction. The trial court, therefore, committed an illegality in not passing the interim order in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for th petitioner and also examined the impugned order dated 3rd July, 2008 passed by the trial court refusing to pass any interim order on the application for temporary injunction. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that his application for temporary injunction is still pending in the trial court, but his grievance is that either the application for temporary injunction should be disposed of expeditiously or an interim order should be passed during the pendency of the application. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that impugned order is an interlocutory order and I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition 3 against the said order, but I think it fit and proper, in the interest of justice, to direct the trial court to decide the application for temporary injunction filed by him at the earliest. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with a direction to trial court to decide the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff–petitioner at the earliest, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 5. A copy of this order may be sent for compliance to Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sri Madhopur. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK