ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. The appeal is directed against the impugned order rejecting thereby an application for temporary injunction tiled by the plaintiff/appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant made an attempt to argue on merits. However, he fairly admits that the earlier application for temporary injunction was already dismissed on merits. Learned trial Judge in paragraph-2 of the impugned order has clearly mentioned about the dismissal of earlier application of like nature for interim injunction. Learned counsel admits that the earlier order has not yet been appealed from. 4. It is a trite law that interim orders passed at various stages, in same suit, operate as res judicata. Learned trial Judge has clearly observed in the impugned order that there was no change in the circumstances. The plaintiff has failed to establish the necessary requisites for grant of interim injunction. Accordingly, the application for temporary injunction, move in second round, is hit by the principle of res judicata, as held by the apex Court in Smt. Sukhrani and others v. Hari Shanker and others reported as AIR 1979 SC 1436 . 5. In the result the trial Judge has not committed any mistake in dismissing the application for temporary injunction. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in view of the nature of the case and further in view of magnitude of the stake, the trial of the suit may be expedited. 7. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it is directed that the learned trial Judge shall decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight months. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands dismissed.