ORDER Bajpai, J.-1. This revision is at the instance of the defendant seeking interference with the order made by the Courts below granting temporary injunction restraining the applicant defendant from re-constructing the suit house and making the proposed alterations and additions during the pendency of the suit. 2. Both the parties claim title to the suit house by putting up their respective cases. The plaintiff respondent claims that she purchased the suit house from Mst. Jawariya by a sale deed dated 11-7-1951 and is in possession since then. The defendant applicant, however, claims that he is in possession since long and that the plaintiff herself had taken only a small room of the suit house on rent from him and is in occupation of the same. 3. This is the second round of appeals and revision in the matter of grant of temporary injunction. Earlier, the application for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff for the entire suit house was dismissed, by holding that according to the rent note alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff herself she was in possession of only one room and that too as a tenant and that the entire suit house except the said room was prima facie found to be in possession of the defendant. Under these circumstances, the application of the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction was rejected and the said order was also affirmed by the lower appellate court. Subsequently, thereafter, the defendant started raising a new construction after demolishing that part of the suit house which was in his possession and wanted to make various alterations and additions. Thereupon, the plaintiff again moved an application seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendant from making any new construction and to preserve the suit property in status quo. The trial Court allowed this application subsequently moved by the plaintiff and the lower appellate Court also affirmed the trial Court's order. The Courts below were of the opinion that during the pendency of the litigation it would be just and proper that the property in dispute is kept intact in status quo, and permitting the defendant to reconstruct the entire suit house or to make substantial alterations or additions will result in unnecessary complications while implementing the decision which may ultimately be given in the suit. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the subsequent order made by the trial Court and affirmed by the lower appellate Court was not liable to be sustained because earlier an application for grant of temporary injunction moved by the plaintiff had already been dismissed and the same has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court also. In my opinion, this contention is absolutely misconceived. The earlier application for grant of temporary injunction was in respect of interference with the actual possession of the parties on the suit house. It was found that the defendant was in possession of the entire suit house except one room which was in possession of the plaintiff. Under these circumstance, the application for grant of temporary injunction moved by the plaintiff in respect of the entire suit house was rejected. The present application which has been subsequently filed is based on a subsequent event which happened after the disposal of the earlier application. Now, as the defendant wanted to reconstruct the suit house, the plaintiff was justified in approaching the trial Court seeking temporary injunction to keep the suit property intact in status quo. If the trial Court in exercise of its discretion allowed the application and restrained the defendant from making any new construction, alteration or addition, and the lower appellate Court also affirmed the same, no case is made out for interfering with the order impugned by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The order impugned appears to be quite reasonable and proper. It cannot be said that it suffers from any defect of jurisdiction or can be said to have been made with material irregularity. 5. On behalf on the applicant it was contended that due to the grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from reconstructing the suit house, the applicant-defendant has been put to great hardship and irreparable injury inasmuch as the suit house is in a dilapidated condition and is likely to fall down at any time. The Courts below were not satisfied with the affidavits flied in this respect and were not convinced. In any case, since the suit has already reached the stage of evidence, it is directed that the trial Court shall make all efforts to dispose of the suit within a period of three months. 6. The Courts below were not satisfied with the affidavits flied in this respect and were not convinced. In any case, since the suit has already reached the stage of evidence, it is directed that the trial Court shall make all efforts to dispose of the suit within a period of three months. 6. From the perusal of the order sheet from 16-5-1978 to 7-8-1978 it becomes evident that, despite the fact that the suit had already reached the stage of evidence after framing of the issues long back in January 1978, attempts had been made by the parties time to time to delay the trial by moving various interlocutory applications for amendment of the pleadings, etc. It is true that the parties have a right to move interlocutory applications and the Courts have to decide the same, but the Courts should always be vigilant to see that such interlocutory applications do not come in the way of prompt disposal of the suit. From the perusal of the order sheet what I find is that the moment an interlocutory application has been moved, the suit was derailed from the track and was put as a sick wagon in the workshop. Adjournments were liberally given time to time for either filing reply or arguments. Even when some reply was filed, further adjournments were given for hearing arguments and the matter did not end only with one such adjournment, but repeated adjournments were sought and unfortunately given without any rhyme or reason. This took months together and the progress of the suit remained held up. From the perusal of the order sheet, I find that even after the hearing of the arguments, the trial Court adjourned the case twice for making an order on the interlocutory application for amendment, and ultimately left the place on transfer without making any order. He wasted 3 months for nothing. It is always expected of the trial Court that interlocutory application, if moved, should be heard and disposed of forthwith or, if, in any case, some adjournment is necessary, the same should be a short one and all efforts should be made to see the filing of the interlocutory applications, as far as possible, does not come in the way of the progress of the suit and its early final disposal. A copy of this paragraph be forwarded to the District Judge Vidisha, who should try to impress upon the presiding officers of the subordinate Courts in his district to be vigilant and careful in this respect. 7. This revision, therefore, fails and is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. The parties will bear their own costs of this revision.