S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THIS CRP arises out of an interlocutory application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction under order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding on the pure questions of fact. In addition, the learned Appellate Judge in para 13 of the order under revision has observed as under. "when both the appellant and respondent are, asserting that the other party is a benami under original sale deed of Ex. P-1, until and unless that aspect is decided, it cannot be conclusively held that the respondent is benami under Ex. P-1. Even assuming that the appellant had alone raised construction of the house on the vacant site standing in the name of both the persons i. e. , appellant and respondent under Ex. P-1, he cannot expect to oust the respondent from the possession of the vacant side unless he proves that he had purchased it from the respondent or she had waived her right in the vacant site. When so many legal aspects are involved in this matter, the appellant cannot simply claim temporary injunction against the respondent alleging that the transaction under Ex. P-1 is a benami in the name of the respondent. " ( 2 ) I find no substantial ground to interfere with the orders of the Court below. The CRP is therefore, dismissed. ( 3 ) HOWEVER, the learned trial Judge is directed to expedite the trial of the suit.