JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. By way of this petition, under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 27.11.2006 passed below Exhibit-31 by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.14, Vadodara in Misc. Civil Appeal No.252 of 2004 in Regular Civil Suit No.79 of 2004, whereby, the said appeal was allowed and the order below Exhibit-5 passed by the learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Vadodara in Regular Civil Suit No.79 of 2004 dated 06.11.2004 was set aside. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners, original plaintiffs and the respondent, original defendant are relatives. In 2004, the petitioners filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.79 of 2004 before the Court of learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Vadodara praying to restrain the respondent herein from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners in respect of the land bearing Survey No.483 of Village Sherkhi, District Vadodara. Along with the said suit, the petitioners had also filed an application below Exhibit-5 for interim injunction. The respondent filed her reply in the said suit vide Exhibit-13. 2.1 The trial Court, after hearing the parties and after considering the evidence adduced on record, allowed the application for interim injunction below Exhibit-5 vide order dated 06.11.2004. Against the said order, the respondent preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No.252 of 2004 before the District Court, Vadodara. 2.2 The lower appellate Court, after hearing both the sides, allowed the said appeal and quashed and order below Exhibit-5 passed by the trial Court, vide impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of this petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the documents produced on record. On 16.03.2007, this Court has passed the following order; "Shri Rausingbhai Dhulabhai Gohil and others, petitioners filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that this Court may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction and pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 27/11/2006 passed in Civil Appeal No.252 of 2006 by Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.14, Vadodara. Petition was filed on 20/12/2006. Petition was filed on 20/12/2006. The learned Judge by his judgment and order dated 27/11/2006, allowed the appeal by allowing some of the additional evidence which has been produced by the appellant, Shantaben in the appeal who is respondent herein. It is also been stated that both the parties are sisters and brothers and the revenue proceedings are pending and RTS appeal is pending before the Revenue Tribunal. In view of this, both the parties will file necessary application for early hearing of the matter. Mr. Pandya, learned advocate has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Bansilal Kanaiyalal Shah and other v. B.R. Shroff and another reported in 2001 (2) GLH 739 . In view of the same, Rule returnable on 23/4/2007. Status quo as of today to be maintained. Direct service is permitted." 4. By the aforesaid order, both the sides were directed to maintain status quo and since then the said position has continued. During the course of hearing, both the sides have jointly requested that the matter may be disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to expeditiously dispose of the suit in question in view of the fact that any observation/s that may be made by this Court, in this order, may prejudicially affect the case of either party. 5. Looking to the facts of the case, I find the request made by the parties to be reasonable. The suit in question is of the year 2004. Hence, the Court of the learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Vadodara, before which the suit in question is pending, is directed to dispose of the suit being Regular Civil Suit No.79 of 2004 as expeditiously as possible. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the status quo order passed by this Court, vide order dated 16.03.2007 and as reproduced herein above, will continue. It is clarified that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case and that this order has been passed on the peculiar facts of the case and in view of the request made by both the sides. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. Rule is mad absolute to the above extent.