FAO 1/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA (By Ranjan Gogoi, J.) Heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the appellants-defend ants and Mr. PK Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff. This appeal is directed against an order dated 16.3.2006 passed by the C ivil Judge (Senior Division), Tinsukia in Misc.(J) Case No.6/2005 by which the p rayer of the respondent-plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction has been all owed by the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit i.e. the appellants have been restrained from encroaching upon the adjacent vacant land of the respondent-plaintiff. It appears from the materials on record that against the aforesaid order , an appeal i.e. Misc. Appeal No.4 of 2006 was filed by the present-appellants b efore the learned District Judge, Tinsukia. The learned District Judge by the or der dated 29.4.2006 while admitting the said appeal, had also passed an order of status-quo in respect of the land in question. Thereafter, by order dated 9.3. 2009, the learned Additional District Judge No.1, FTC, Tinsukia directed for ret urn of the memo of appeal to the appellants for being presented before the appro priate Court. This was so done on the ground that the Court of the learned Distr ict Judge, Tinsukia did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the app eal. Following the aforesaid order dated 9.3.2009 for return of the memo of appe al to the appellant the present appeal has been filed. It has been stated by Mr. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are in possession of the disputed land and, therefore, the o rder of injunction has virtually become infructuous. Shri Sahewalla, therefore, has submitted that the appeal may be disposed of by directing early disposal of Title Suit No.6 of 2005. Shri Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent (plaintiff) has submitte d that the claimed possession of the appellants over the disputed land has not b een made known to him. Shri Kalita further submits that he has no objection to t he early disposal of the suit by the learned Trial Court, as prayed for by the a ppellants. We have considered the matter. A period of over four years has elapsed s ince the passing of the injunction order. We have noticed that the injunction or der restrains the appellant from encroaching on the land to which the plaintiff has laid a claim in the suit filed. In such circumstances, we are of the view that it would be appropriate t o dispose of the appeal by directing the learned Trial Court to hear and dispose of Title Suit No.6 of 2005 as expeditiously as possible and, in the meantime, b y restraining the appellants from raising any construction on the disputed land in the event they are in possession of the same. The above order, in our conside red view, will adequately take care of the grievances of both the parties till s uch time Title Suit No.6 of 2005 remains pending. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms.