JUDGMENT : Ahmad, C.J. - This application has been filed on behalf of the Defendants. It arises out of an interlocutory order passed on 1-11-1961 in a suit which is still pending for disposal. There was an application filed by the Plaintiffs in that suit, under Order 39, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, praying to restrain the Defendants from making constructions on the land in suit. Originally there was an ex-parte order passed allowing interim stay. Thereafter the matter was heard in the presence of the parties and the application for stay was finally disposed of by the aforesaid order dated 1-11-1961. That order read as follows: The Defendants do construct a wooden gate within the space XX-1 only and not in any portion of the Plaintiffs? land. The Defendants cannot lock up the said gate at any time. The Defendants shall allow the Plaintiff to enter into the lane Xy, and Xy-1 only for the purpose of repairing the Plaintiffs? house, thatching and marbling of the wall. If, after final disposal of the case it is found that the Defendants have no right to put the gate at the aforesaid space, they shall remove it. There after the Defendants did construct a wooden gate on the land in suit. Against that construction there was a petition filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs, making a grievance of the fact that in constructing the wooden gate the Defendants had contravened the aforesaid order passed by the Court on 1-11-1961 and therefore they were liable for disobedience and breach of the terms of the order as provided in Order 39, Rule 2(3), Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The trial Court, on hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that there was no Disobedience committed by the Defendants and accordingly it dismissed the petition filed on be-half of the Plaintiffs. Against that order there was an appeal taken by the Plaintiffs. The lower appellate Court in dealing with the petition, has observed: It is therefore necessary that the trial Court should come to a clear finding if the constructions, which have been made in the land after the order, were necessary to construct the wooden gate as directed in the order and if it will be found that they were necessary for the construction of the said gate, different considerations may arise. Accordingly, it has set aside the order of the trial Court and remanded the case to that Court for rehearing with a direction that the trial Court, after giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, should come to a clear finding whether these constructions were necessary for the construction of the wooden gate and hen dispose of the case according to law. In other words the point raised by the lower appellate Court is that if the constructions objected to by the Plaintiffs were not necessary for the purpose of providing a wooden gate then a question may arise whether the order passed by the trial Court was, in that respect, disobeyed. I am afraid this reading of the order passed by the trial Court is not at all correct. The trial Court clearly stated in its order that "the Defendants do construct a wooden gate within the space XX-1 only and not in any portion of the Plaintiff?s land". This order did not specify the form or the nature of the construction that had to be done in order to provide a wooden gate. In that view of the matter, if the Defendants, in order to provide a wooden gate, found it necessary to first fix a masonry pillar to hold the gate, that cannot either in fact or in law, amount to disobedience of the order passed by the trial Court on 1-11-1961. Accordingly I think that the order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court, on the ground that the trial Court should have found whether the constructions which have been made on the land were necessary for the construction of the wooden gate, is not at all justified; in fact it does not arise for consideration in a matter like this. In my opinion, therefore, no purpose will be served by maintaining the order of remand passed by the Court below. 3. Accordingly this application is allowed, the order under revision is set aside, and that of the trial Court is affirmed. But I think in the interests of justice and more particularly in the face of the strained relationship between the parties, it will be proper if the suit itself is disposed of at the earliest opportunity. I am given to understand that the parties also are ready to assist the Court in the expeditious hearing of this cause. But I think in the interests of justice and more particularly in the face of the strained relationship between the parties, it will be proper if the suit itself is disposed of at the earliest opportunity. I am given to understand that the parties also are ready to assist the Court in the expeditious hearing of this cause. Let the suit therefore be disposed of expeditiously. There will be no order for costs. Civil Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed