- (1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 22nd February, 2008, whereby the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Sikar, Camp Srimadhopur, directed both the parties to maintain status quo of the suit land in question.
(2.) The petitioner-plaintiff is found to have filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction together with an application of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC against the respondent-defendant imploring that the respondent-defendant may be retrained from making any interference in the possession of the petitioner's property in question. Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Srimadhopur, allowed the temporary injunction application of the petitioner-plaintiff and directed the respondent-defendant not to make any interference in the suit property, which is said to have been in possession of the petitioner-plaintiff. Aggrieved with this order, respondent-defendant preferred an appeal and the Appellate Court having heard both the parties directed them to maintain status quo of the disputed property. The petitioner-plaintiff has assailed the order dated 22nd February, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, No.2, Sikar, Camp Srimadhopur, by way of the instant writ petition.
(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is revealed that the suit has been pending in the court of Civil Judge, Srimadhopur since 2003. It is a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and the learned Additional District Judge is found to have directed both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the property in question. I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the learned Appellate Court, which is based purely on facts. However, in the interest of justice, the learned trial court may be directed to expedite the proceedings of the suit.;