Hon'ble PANWAR, J.—By the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the order Annexure-6 dated 18th November, 2008 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar has been challenged by the petitioners. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the Divisional Irrigation Officer, Sri Ganganagar by order Annexure-2 dated 27th March, 2001 stopped the water supply of Chak 3W on the allegation that in Mogha through which the water is supplied for irrigation purposes, a syphon has been installed and water has been taken through the syphon unauthorizedly. A proceeding under Rule 31(1) of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 was held and the order stopping water supply came to be passed. That order came tobe challenged by the petitioners before the respondent-Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Sri Ganganagar by way of an appeal. The Appellate Authority on careful consideration of material available before it and upon hearing the petitioners did not find any error in the order appealed against and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a civil suit before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) , Sri Ganganagar (for short "the Trial Court" hereinafter). Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 seeking to temporary injunction was also moved by the petitioners. That application came to dismissed by the trial Court by order dated 20th October, 2008. Against which the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar (for short "the Appellate Court" hereinafter). The said appeal came to be dismissed by order impugned. Hence, this writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Carefully gone through the material available on record. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial Court as well as Appellate Court fell in error in declining to grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners. The order impugned dehors the rules and therefore, they are bad in law. 5. The water supply, as is evident from the record, appears to have been stopped in the year 2000. In my view, the question raised by the petitioners cannot be gone into at the time of deciding the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 seeking temporary injunction. 5. The water supply, as is evident from the record, appears to have been stopped in the year 2000. In my view, the question raised by the petitioners cannot be gone into at the time of deciding the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 seeking temporary injunction. The suit is pending before the trial Court since 2001 and by now, either the parties might have led the evidence and suit might have been proceeded and may be, at the verge of the conclusion and if the suit is not concluded, instead of entertaining the writ petition challenging the dismissal of application seeking temporary injunction, it is more appropriate to direct the trial Court to decide the suit itself utmost expeditiously. Even otherwise, there is concurrent finding recorded by Divisional Irrigation Officer, Superintending Engineer and Civil Court and Appellate Court holding therein that the petitioners are not entitled for temporary injunction. In my view, the order impugned calls for no interference. 6.The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. The trial Court is directed to decide the main suit if not already decided, expeditiously since the suit is of year 2001.