( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 16th September, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby application IA No. 1992/2004 filed by the appellant herein under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was disposed of with certain directions. ( 2 ) BY the same order, four issues in the suit were also framed. It was directed that the list of witnesses shall be filed by the parties with further directions to the plaintiff in the suit to file affidavits for examination in chief. ( 3 ) THE respondent herein is admittedly in possession of one room of the aforesaid property, which is claimed to be an ancestral property and on the above premise suit for partition has been filed. It is claimed that the property being ancestral property is liable to be partitioned by meets and bounds amongst the co-sharers. Learned counsel for the appellant contends inter alia that property being ancestral property, an interim injunction should have been granted directing parties to maintain status quo and restricting all parties from dealing with the same. ( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge after examining the document of title has held that prima facie the property cannot be said to be an ancestral property for Late sh. Girdhari Lal who had executed a Will during his life time. The said Will has been proved in collateral proceedings in Suit No. 388/2003 filed by the respondent for possession against another alleged co-sharer. Decree of possession on the basis of the Will was passed in favour of the said respondent. The appellant had his affidavit in the said suit. As per terms of the perpetual lease deed, the property was not purchased from compensation payable under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. In the absence of other evidence and decree passed against another alleged co-sharer, learned Single Judge has rightly held that no prima facie case has been made out. Even in the affidavit filed by the appellant in the collateral proceedings, he had expressed his lack of knowledge about the Will. ( 5 ) THE suit is at the stage of adducing evidence. List of witnesses and affidavit by way of examination in chief have been filed. Therefore, the suit has to proceed in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. ( 5 ) THE suit is at the stage of adducing evidence. List of witnesses and affidavit by way of examination in chief have been filed. Therefore, the suit has to proceed in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. In any case, the principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property act would be applicable. If the appellant succeeds in the suit, he can always rely upon the principle of lis pendens. However, we do not think that the appellant has been able to make out a case for grant of interim injunction. We agree with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge. Parties may get the suit expedited and, if necessary, get the suit heard on day to day basis. ( 6 ) IN terms of the aforesaid order, the appeal stands disposed of. It is clarified that the opinion expressed in this order is tentative and prima facie, and shall not in any manner influence the final decision of the suit.