JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - Challenging the Order Dated 7.12.2009 passed by the Learned Addl. District Judge, Balasore in IA No. 99 Of 2009, this Writ Petition has been tiled. The Appellate Court has reversed the Order Dated 9.11.2009 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore in IA No. 358 of 2009 rejecting the application under Order 39 Rules 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. The Petitioners are the Defendants. The Opp. Party as Plaintiff filed the aforesaid Civil Suit No. 756 of 2009-I pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore for declaration of his actual date of birth as 23.04.1975 & the charge sheet dated 23.08-2006 & initiation of departmental proceeding by the Defendants basing on the allegations that the date of birth of the Plaintiff as 23.4.1979 is wrong & illegal; to restrain the Defendants from taking any coercive action against the Plaintiff basing on the charge sheet on the basis that the date of birth is 23.4.1979 & grant any other relief as he is entitled to. In the said suit, the D.G.M. (H.R.) & the Plant Manager, L-PG Bottling Plant, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Defendants are the employer of the Plaintiff. Challenging the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding & the order of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa rejecting the prayer for correction of the date of birth, the Plaintiff filed WP(C) No. 2161 of 2007 before this Court. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court on 3.7.2008 holding that the challenge made by the Plaintiff to the initiation of the departmental proceeding against him by issuing charge sheet is premature & the decision of the Board of Secondary Education rejecting the Plaintiffs prayer to correct his date of birth cannot be faulted with. However, the said order was modified by this Court on 24.7.2009 further observing that the Plaintiff can seek remedies before the Civil Court as there was no bar for such remedies. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit. In the suit, he also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 of the CPC to restrain the Defendants temporarily from making any coercive action against him basing on the charge sheet dated 23.8.2006. The Plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit. In the suit, he also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 of the CPC to restrain the Defendants temporarily from making any coercive action against him basing on the charge sheet dated 23.8.2006. The Plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court on 9.11.2009 after hearing both the parties on merits. Against the said order, FAO No. 99 of 2009 was filed before the Learned Addl. District Judge, Balasore which was disposed of on 7.12.2009 with a direction to dispose of the suit expeditiously preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the order. 3. Being aggrieved with the said order, this Writ Petition has been filed by the Defendants-Petitioners. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Defendants- Petitioners submitted that the Defendants are the employer & it was found that by way of misrepresentation & fraudulence the Opp. Party-Plaintiff obtained an appointment order on 16.6.1995. Getting information about the said fact, the authority caused an investigation to ascertain the correctness of the said fact & also sought clarification from the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education whereafter it was found that the Plaintiff misrepresented his date of birth. Accordingly, a departmental proceeding was initiated & charge sheet was filed. The Opp. Party-Plaintiff filed his explanation to the charge sheet. He submitted that WP(C) No. 2161 of 2007 filed by the Opp. Party before this Court for correction of his date of birth was earlier dismissed. Therefore, the same operates as res judicata in the present suit & as the departmental proceeding has already been initiated, the lower Appellate Court should not have reversed the order passed by the Trial Court & directed not to take any coercive action against the Plaintiff-Petitioner till disposal of the suit. The order passed by the lower Appellate Court amounts to a decree of the suit as the full & final relief has been granted to the Plaintiff in an interim application. 5. The Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Plaintiff-Opp. Party submitted that the lower Appellate Court directed the Trial Court to conclude the suit within a period of four months & till that date no coercive action should be taken against the Plaintiff by the authorities. 5. The Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Plaintiff-Opp. Party submitted that the lower Appellate Court directed the Trial Court to conclude the suit within a period of four months & till that date no coercive action should be taken against the Plaintiff by the authorities. He submitted that the Plaintiff has made a bona fide claim that he was not aware about the mistake crept into his matriculation certificate with regard to the date of birth. Further, in the alternative, he submitted that since the Plaintiff has already been suspended, the disciplinary proceeding may go on but no final order should be passed as the lower Appellate Court has already directed the Trial Court to conclude the suit within a period of four months taking into consideration the bona fide of the Plaintiff. 6. From the above rival submissions of the parties, it appears that when the Plaintiff in his suit for correction of his date of birth had prayed for a relief of not taking any coercive action against him basing on the wrongly mentioned date of birth in the H.S.C. Certificate & the charge sheet dated 23.08.2006 for the said allegation, the Lower Appellate Court granted him the said relief which was prayed for by the Plaintiff in his interim application for injunction & dismissed by the Trial Court observing that it was not a fit case to protect the service of the Plaintiff by restraining the Defendants from taking any action as the Defendants have the authority to deal with the matter as per law. However, the Appellate Court directed to conclude the suit & passed the order without assigning any reason for the said purpose. 7. The Apex Court has consistently & persistently deprecated the action of Courts in granting interim relief which amounts to final relief at the initial stage while considering the interim application. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court in the case of St. John's Teacher Training Institute (for Women), Madurai, Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, etc. etc. Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Race Shiping and Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. and another, & Orissa State Commercial Transport Corporation Ltd. represented by its Secretary Sri C.B.S. Ramchandra Rao v. Sri Satyanarayn Singh and Anr. reported in 40 (1974) CLT 336. 8. John's Teacher Training Institute (for Women), Madurai, Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, etc. etc. Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Race Shiping and Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. and another, & Orissa State Commercial Transport Corporation Ltd. represented by its Secretary Sri C.B.S. Ramchandra Rao v. Sri Satyanarayn Singh and Anr. reported in 40 (1974) CLT 336. 8. Considering the above settled principle of law & the facts & circumstances of the case as narrated above, for just decision of the case this Court sets aside the impugned Order Dated 7.12.2009 passed by the Learned Addl. District Judge, Balasore in FAO No. 99 of 2009 & directs the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore to dispose of Civil Suit No. 756 of 2009-I within a period of four months & further directs the parties to cooperate with the Trial Court to conclude the suit within the stipulated period. Since the Plaintiff has already been suspended from service, it is open to the authorities to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding but final order in the said proceeding shall not be passed for a period of four months from today or till completion of the trial, whichever is earlier. It is also open to the authorities to pass final order thereafter. With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.