Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order, dated 30-3-2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Saharanpur dismissing the Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the petitioner as well as the order of the Civil Judge on 30-4-1992 rejecting the application No. 7C filed by the petitioner for interim injunction. The suit for interim injunction was filed by the petitioner. Initially an interim injunction was granted but subsequently the Court below after hearing both the parties had rejected the application. Against which a Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed which was dismissed by the appellate Court. Both the Courts below have considered in detail the claim of the parties and have rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction. This court under Article 226 of the Constitution normally do not interfere with the interlocutory order passed in a pending suit. The suit filed by the petitioner is the one filed in the year 1988. The counsel for the petitioner has, in alternative, prayed that a direction be issued to the trial Court to expedite the hearing of the suit.
(3.) After having heard counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record it is clear that both the Courts below have given cogent reasons for rejecting the application for granting interim injunction. No interference is called for. However, since the suit has been filed in the year 1988 and is pending for last fifteen years, it is expedient to direct the trial Court to decide the suit on merit expeditiously. The trial Court will not grant unnecessary adjournments to both the parties and decide the suit expeditiously.;