Judgment Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-State, opposite parties No. 1 to 12 and 14 to 16. 2. The present application has been filed by the State being aggrieved by order dated 11.4.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge IV, Bhojpur at Ara whereby appeal was allowed, order refusing injunction by the trial Court set aside and an interim injunction granted against the defendants not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs till the disposal of the suit. This Court admitted this application by order dated 22.8.2001 and stayed the impugned order of the Appellate Court. 3. The State alleges that the plaintiffs had encroached upon public land. An encroachment proceeding was initiated and encroachments, as made by the plaintiffs and several others were directed to be removed. Pursuant to such direction, several encroachments were removed but the plaintiffs encroachment could not be removed. They then preferred an appeal as provided under the Public Land Encroachment Act but failed and their appeal was dismissed still the encroachments were not removed. They then filed the present suit claiming title by adverse possession and, as such, for restraining State and others from interfering with their possession. They prayed for an interim injunction. The trial Court refused the same and, as stated above, the Appellate Court granted the same which was stayed by this Court. It is not known as to what is the status of the main case itself which was instituted in the year, 1999. It is also not known as to what has happened after the stay order granted by this Court. However, on the averments of the State itself, it is clear that plaintiffs were in possession. They have asserted their right, title by adverse possession. Their possession being there and they assert their right which is subjudiced then a prima facie case is in their favour for the limited purpose of an interim injunction. But not knowing the present status, this Court cannot proceed further than order that status quo, as existing today, shall be maintained by the authorities till the proceedings are disposed of by the trial Court. 4. As the title suit is of the year, 1999, almost seven years have gone by, it is expected that within next six months, the trial Court will conclude the hearing of the suit and I direct accordingly. 4. As the title suit is of the year, 1999, almost seven years have gone by, it is expected that within next six months, the trial Court will conclude the hearing of the suit and I direct accordingly. It shall be the responsibility of the learned District Judge to monitor the progress of the case. 5. This application is, accordingly, disposed of.