JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 10.2.2010 (Annex.6) passed by District Judge, Rajsamand in the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no way in existence upon which the respondent-plaintiff is seeking permanent injunction. Therefore, after considering all the points taken by the respondent-plaintiff, the trial Court rejected the application for temporary injunction filed by the respondent-plaintiff. In an appeal preferred before the appellate Court, the appellate Court, only on the basis of Commissioner's report, passed positive order in favour of the plaintiff-respondent which is erroneous. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that order passed by the appellate Court is totally contrary to the evidence on record so also contrary to the Commissioner's report because an alternative way is available to the plaintiff-respondent, but this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the appellate Court while deciding the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff. Therefore, order passed by the appellate Court may be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submits that the order passed by the appellate Court is in consonance with law and has been passed after considering the Commissioner's report. Therefore, there is no error in the impugned order dated 10.2.2010. 6. After taking into consideration the entire facts of the case, I am of the opinion that suit is pending since 2009 and dispute is only with regard to way upon the land in question. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to direct the trial Court to decide the suit itself within a period of six months. Till then, status quo, as per Commissioner's report, shall be maintained.Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.Petition Disposed of. *******