JUDGMENT 1. - The respondent has filed an application for modifying the stay order dated 16.10.2006 whereby this Court had stayed the operation of the order dated 10.8.2006, 1.9.2006 and 27.9.2006 till 31.10.2006. The main grievance of the respondent is that the appellant is continuing with the construction, which allegedly interferes with her easementry rights. Moreover, that the appellant is likely to complete the construction in a short spell of time. Lastly, an issue has been raised about maintainability of the appeal itself. 2. On the other hand, Mr. Arvind Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that the appellant is requesting only for the right to complete the finishing of the building which has already been completed. 3. After hearing the arguments, both the learned counsels requested that the matter may be decided finally. 4. The grievance of the appellant is that although he had filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. for vacating the ex-parte stay order, the same has not been decided by the trial Court. Meanwhile because of the stay order he is suffering as the construction has suddenly come to a grinding halt. 'Therefore, he has prayed that orders dated 10.8.2006, 1.9.2006 and 27.9.2006 should be quashed and set aside. 5. In catena of cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have held that construction should not be brought to a grinding halt as the construction rates are increasing by leaps and bounds. Therefore, the learned trial Court was duty bound to decide the application under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. within a reasonable time. But, it has failed to do so. 6. Therefore, we are inclined to direct the trial Court to decide the application within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is further clarified that the appellant shall be free to carry out the finishing job, but the same shall be subject to the final decision of the suit. Although the appellant is free to complete the finishing job, but he is not permitted to raise any further construction on the building, which already stands on the disputed property till the decision of the trial Court. 7. With these directions and observations, this appeal is allowed.Appeal Allowed. *******