JUDGMENT 1. - The revision petition in this Court was filed on 7-12-1991 and on 21-1-1992 the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for the record to be sent for the purposes of admission, which request was accepted and thereafter unnecessary adjournments were sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner till the matter came up on 19-11 -1993, on which date the show-cause notice was issued as to why the revision petition be not admitted and allowed, in spite of the fact that the service was complete on 4-4-1993 the requests for adjournment were made from time to time and ultimately it is today i.e. 19-5-1994 that the matter comes up for the purposes of admission before me. It is a matter of concern for this Court that the matter was prolonging from December, 1991 to May, 1994 on account of unnecessary adjournments being sought and in the process it is ultimately the litigant who suffers. We have been repeatedly telling the learned Members of the Bar to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments. I believe that in future the learned Members of the Bar avoid unnecessary adjournments and co-operate with the Court so that unnecessary delay is not caused and the litigants do not suffer on that account. 2. On the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the revision petition may be disposed of finally at this stage I have heard the arguments and the revision petition is being decided finally by this order. 3. The petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 16-5-1991 passed by the learned trial court on the application filed by the petitioner for grant of prohibitory and mandatory injunction and also to the order passed by the learned first appellate court dated 5-9-1991 whereby the order passed by the learned trial court was affirmed. 4. The facts summarised in brief are that the petitioner has filed a suit for grant of prohibitory as well as the mandatory injunction to the effect that the respondent who is a tenant of a portion of Balaji Shah Bhawan may be restrained from making any construction or alternatively in any part thereof and in case the defendant raises any construction the same shall be demolished forthwith. 5. 5. A Commission was appointed on the date the suit was filed who reported that the western boundary wall was still intact but behind it two rooms have been raised but not completed and after perusal of the report, the learned trial Court passed the order for maintaining status quo on 8-1-1991. The case of the petitioner plaintiff is that two rooms on the north western corner with a varandah were let out on a monthly rent of Rs.10/- and the respondent defendant in the earlier litigation on 15-10-1982 had himself averred that besides two rooms and varandah there is latrine and a bathroom and a chowk under his tenancy and in the present suit on 10-1 -1991 the defendant came out with a plea that there was a cow shed for storing the fodder on the site in question which was a part of the premises rented out to him and that the same had fallen and the construction has been raised. On the second report of the Commissioner dated 2-2-1991 it was pointed out that the defendant demolished the old front wall and behind it two rooms constructed by him have been converted into two shops and thereafter the matter came up before the learned trial court on 16-5-1991 and the learned trial Court while disposing of the application granted an injunction that the defendant will not raise any construction, demolition or change the nature of the property mentioned at item No.1 and shall not interfere in the enjoyment of that property the plaintiff in respect of item No.4 i.e. the site in question, which is stated to have been taken possession unauthorisedly, and two rooms were constructed and latter converted into shops. The plaintiff desired the same to be removed by mandatory injunction which prayer was declined. The petitioner not feeling satisfied with the refusal to grant mandatory injunction prayed for in the Misc. application went up in appeal and the learned first appellate Court after appraisal of the material placed on the record and after having carefully appreciating the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, found no illegality or error in the order passed by the learned trial court and consequently dismissed the appeal. 6. application went up in appeal and the learned first appellate Court after appraisal of the material placed on the record and after having carefully appreciating the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, found no illegality or error in the order passed by the learned trial court and consequently dismissed the appeal. 6. The learned court was also of the opinion that the mandatory injunction ordinarily could not be issued under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. and the Court can maintain status quo as it existed on the date of the suit and further observed that in fact, no appeal could lie against an order of that kind and a revision should have been preferred. 7. Be that, as it may, the petitioner feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid two orders preferred this revision petition and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner plaintiff has urged that on the given facts and circumstances coupled with the admission of the defendant and further in the light of the reports of the Commission a mandatory injunction be issued directing the defendant respondent to remove the alleged unauthorised construction forthwith. 8. I am afraid this argument cannot be accepted as these are disputed questions and the parties have to lead evidence in support of their contentions before the trial Court where the suit is pending and the relief which the petitioner is praying cannot be granted as it would amount to expression of opinion which might result and affect the ultimate decision of the suit to be arrived at by the learned trial Court after both the parties have led their evidence and concluded the case. These questions involve whether the site on which the construction has been raised was a part of the tenanted premises or not; whether there existed a cow shed earlier or same construction of that kind existed on the site or not; whether that constructed portion was in possession of the defendant as tenant or not are disputed questions and no finding can be arrived at presently. 9. 9. The learned first appellate Court after appreciating this very contention rightly observed that the relief of mandatory injunction in this situation cannot be granted since it would further complicate the issue and this could be done only after full trial and in case the plaintiff succeeds in proving his case he would be entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction and the Court in that situation would order the removal of the said construction. Appeal was decided on perusal of the record and after analysing the two reports made by the local Commissioners. It has been brought on the record that the construction was not fully complete and was completed after the status quo order. The plaintiff petitioner should have immediately resorted to the contempt proceedings or other remedies available under Order 39 itself and for not having resorted to these remedies he has to blame only himself in the situation. I also do not understand as to what was the purpose for making a prayer to this Court to send for the record of the case which in a way stayed the progress of the suit for over 21/2 years. There was no order staying the proceedings in the suit but in this way the proceedings were stalled unnecessarily otherwise during this period the suit might have been decided one way or the other. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stressed that the ultimate decision of the suit might take quite some time and the respondent defendant is enjoying the two. shops having raised construction at the site without paying anything and that these shops can conveniently fetch a sum of Rs. 1,000/- in a month and he was prepared to pay or deposit atleast Rs.500/- per month in case the possession of those shops are delivered to him. On question being put to the learned counsel for the respondent, it was stated that in one of the shops which is in the shape of godown, fodder is stored whereas in the other shop son of the defendant is carrying on the business of confectionary. 11. In my considered opinion, it would meet the ends of justice if an interim arrangement is made and the defendant is put to terms. 11. In my considered opinion, it would meet the ends of justice if an interim arrangement is made and the defendant is put to terms. Since the defendant is admittedly using the godown and the shop, which according to the plaintiff is unauthorisedly built by trespassing upon his land and in the event of the suit for mandatory injunction being decreed he would be entitled to the amount being determined here in this order and in the event of suit being dismissed finally this amount be refunded to the defendant. x x x x x I, therefore, in this situation, direct that the defendant shall deposit in the trial Court the amount at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month in respect of the site in question i.e. two shops having been constructed from the date the suit was filed till the final decree and in the event of a decree being granted for mandatory injunction the plaintiff would be entitled to this amount and the Court in the event of decreeing the suit would order accordingly. Arrears at this rate from the date of suit till date would be deposited under orders of the trial Court on or before 10-7-1994 and Rs.150/- per month shall be deposited by the 10th of each calendar month till the final decision of the suit and the deposit so made shall follow the result of the suit. Since the record of the case had been sent for by this Court on the asking of the learned counsel for the petitioner the same be remitted back to the learned trial Court forthwith and the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from-today. No unnecessary adjournments shall be granted to the parties. The impugned orders shall stand modified to the extent of the observations made above in this order. It is further clarified that this arrangement or modification in the orders is being made as an interim measure during the pendency of the suit only. This arrangement shall not debar the plaintiff petitioner from claiming such other damages or mesne profits which he would have been otherwise found entitled to at such market rate in the event of the decree being ultimately granted by the trial Court in his favour. 12. This arrangement shall not debar the plaintiff petitioner from claiming such other damages or mesne profits which he would have been otherwise found entitled to at such market rate in the event of the decree being ultimately granted by the trial Court in his favour. 12. This revision petition stands disposed of in the terms indicated above. No orders as to costs.Order accordingly. *******