JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 01.04.2008. By the aforesaid order, appeal preferred by the respondents was allowed. 2. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit along with an application for temporary injunction. The Court below dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order, he preferred an appeal. The appeal was allowed with the direction to the parties to maintain status quo. 3. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the property in dispute was subject matter of the earlier litigation in civil suit No.61/88 so decided by the Civil Court vide its order dated 22.07.1996. The appeal so preferred against the said order by the respondents was dismissed. For the same property, new suit has been filed by the plaintiff-respondents, ignoring the aforesaid, injunction order has been passed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that property in dispute is different than involved in the earlier suit. In fact, there exists two 'Will'. Looking to the aforesaid, injunction order has been passed in favour of the respondents-plaintiff. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for parties and scanned the matter carefully. 6. Perusal of the order passed in appeal shows description of property to show that property involved in the earlier suit is different than the property involved in this suit. The Appellate Court, however, left the issue for its decision along with the suit. 7. In the light of the finding recorded by the Appellate Court, I am of the view that same is quite casual. Perusal of the plaint does not show averments that the property involved in present suit is different than the property involved in the earlier suit more so when the plaintiff-respondent was knowing about the decision of the earlier suit being party. In any case, I am of the view that petitioner-defendant cannot be restrained by an order of status quo in regard to the property of earlier suit. 8. In the light of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is partly allowed with the modification that status quo order would not operate against the petitioner-defendant regarding the property involved in the earlier suit. If other than the aforesaid property, there exists land, house or other construction, the impugned order will operate only to that extent. 9. 8. In the light of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is partly allowed with the modification that status quo order would not operate against the petitioner-defendant regarding the property involved in the earlier suit. If other than the aforesaid property, there exists land, house or other construction, the impugned order will operate only to that extent. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for both the parties submit that even a direction may be given for expeditious disposal of the suit. 10. In view of prayer made, the Court below is expected to decide the suit at the earliest. Both the parties are directed to cooperate for expeditious disposal of the suit.Petition Partly allowed. *******