JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. Perused the order impugned passed by learned trial Court on 18.9.1996, refusing to grant temporary injunction to the plaintiff-appellant who claimed to have purchased the disputed land from Foji Pariwar Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited, Nagaur on 5.9.1987 which was registered on 24.11.1987. Original registered patta dated 24.11.1987 is producing before me. 3. A close scrutiny of the registered patta dated 24.11.1987 lead me to believe that there is some difference in the area disclosed in the plaint and the actual area which comes from the boundary given in the registered patta. I am of the opinion that the aforesaid fact is not sufficient to refuse injunction to the plaintiff-appellant unless it is established that the plot in question does not belong to the Society which has exec uted Patta in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. 4. At the time of granting temporary injunction this Court does not propose to make a threadbare discussion about the entitlement of the Society which has exec uted patta in favour of plaintiff-appellant because that may cause prejudice to the either arty at the time of trial of the suit. 5. However, looking into the facts and circumstances of the present case both the parties are directed to maintain status quo. The defendant respondent, Nagarpi lika Mandal, Nagaur is restrained from executing any patta in favour of third person during the pendency of the suit. 6. I am of the view that restraining Nagarpalika Mandal, Nagaur from executing any patta in favour of third person during the pendency of the suit is must in the facts and circumstances of the case in as much as any act done contrary to it by the respondent would cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff-appellant which can never be compensated in terms of money. 7. Both learned counsel for the parties agreed that the present controversy between the parties lies on a narrow compass and can easily be disposed of within a period of six months. 8. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the-case and also after taking into account admissions of learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court is hereby directed to conclude the trial of the suit preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment as contemplated u/O. 17, R. 2 CPC. 8. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the-case and also after taking into account admissions of learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court is hereby directed to conclude the trial of the suit preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment as contemplated u/O. 17, R. 2 CPC. In this regard it is made clear that learned trial Court shall not grant unnecessary adjournments. Adjournments shall be granted only after satisfying itself to the ground of adjournment.As a result of aforementioned discussion, the present appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of learned trial Court dated 18.09.1996 under appeal refusing to grant injunction to the plaintiff-appellant is accordingly set aside with a direction to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial of the suit preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Both the parties are directed to bear their ow6) costsAppeal allowed. *******