JUDGMENT 1. - The plaintiff-appellant has challenged the order dated 20.12.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby he had dismissed the application for temporary injunction filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Code', for short). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-plaintiff alongwith his mother Smt. Vishnu Kumari instituted a suit for partition wherein they claimed that they are the descendants of Late Rai Bahadur Deen Dayalji Tiwari. According to them Rai Bahadur Deen Deyalji Tiwari expired leaving behind him three sons namely Shiv Raj, Shiv Kishore and Shiv Bihari. Due to joint Hindu Family all the ornaments were kept in a locker, bearing No. 408(A), in Bank of Jaipur Limited. Since there were three sons, each one was entitled to one-third share of the ornaments. However, the plaintiff-appellant feared that the other co-sharers are likely to disburse the said jewelery. Therefore, they prayed for temporary injunction and partition of the movable property. 3. The respondents on the other hand, filed their written statement and claimed that there was already a partition of the properties. With regard to the locker No. 408(A) at Bank of Jaipur Limited, the Calcutta High Court had already granted a Succession Certificate in favour of respondents. Therefore, on the basis of the said Succession Certificate, the jewelery kept in the locker was taken out. The locker is empty. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for a temporary injunction. After hearing both the parties vide order dated 20.12.2000 the learned Judge had dismissed the temporary injunction application as stated above. Hence this appeal before this Court. 4. Mr. Anoop Dhand the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the suit has been pending before the trial Court since 1997 i.e. almost for nine years. Because of the dismissal of the temporary injunction application, the appellant is needlessly suffering. So far, this Court has not even issued notice to the respondent. Therefore, he has prayed that a direction be issued to the trial Court for early decision of the case. 5. Without commenting on the merits and demerits of the impugned order, in the interest of justice we direct the trial Court to take the evidence on a daily basis and to complete the trial within a period of six months. Therefore, he has prayed that a direction be issued to the trial Court for early decision of the case. 5. Without commenting on the merits and demerits of the impugned order, in the interest of justice we direct the trial Court to take the evidence on a daily basis and to complete the trial within a period of six months. The parties are also directed to cooperate with the trial Court and to submit their oral and documentary evidence as soon as possible and to ensure that the trial is completed within a period of six months. With these directions this appeal is disposed of.Appeal Disposed of. *******