JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent-M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities as well as learned counsel for respondent no. 7. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for restraining the respondents, specially the District Magistrate, Saharsa (respondent no. 3) from issuing No Objection Certificate (NOC) with respect to the enquiry about right, title and interest over the plot of land offered by respondent no. 7 for the purpose of allotment and commissioning of petrol pump dealership and also for restraining respondent-M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation for the sake of brevity ) from awarding dealership of petrol pump to respondent no. 7 and for directing respondent- Corporation to recall the Letter of Intent (LOI) issued to respondent no. 7 and to debar her from participation in the exercise of allotment of dealership as well as for other ancillary reliefs. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner alongwith two others has filed Title Suit No, 271 of 2009 (Annexure-1) against respondent-Corporation, respondent no. 7 and others for declaration of their title and possession over the land in question as well as for injunction and other ancillary reliefs, which is pending before Civil Judge-l, Senior Division, Saharsa, in which notices had been issued to the defendants, but they have not appeared till date although a period of one and a half year has already lapsed. It is also not in dispute that in the. said suit an injunction petition has been filed by plaintiff-petitioner for restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and from dispossessing them from the suit land and also from making construction over the same or changing its nature. In the injunction matter also notices had been sent to the defendants as far back as on 13.1.2011, but none of the defendants have cared to appear in the said matter also. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly argued that he has no objection to the Corporation granting petrol pump dealership to respondent no. 7, but that should not be in the land in question, which, according to the petitioner, is his ancestral plot being settled by the ex- intermediaries to the settlee-raiyats, who were predecessors of the petitioner and his co-sharers. 7, but that should not be in the land in question, which, according to the petitioner, is his ancestral plot being settled by the ex- intermediaries to the settlee-raiyats, who were predecessors of the petitioner and his co-sharers. The question of title can be decided only by the civil court of proper jurisdiction before whom the aforesaid title suit is pending and only that court can legally decide the issue of possession and injunction also. 5. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents, who are defendants in Title Suit No. 271 of 2009 to immediately appear in the said suit within fifteen days and file their rejoinder to the injunction petition as well as their written statement so that the matter can be legally decided without any further delay. 6. In the instant case an interim order dated 21.12.2010 was passed by this Court directing that till further orders the Collector, Saharsa shall not issue no objection certificate pertaining to the land in question to anyone and no dealership of petrol pump over the said land shall be awarded by respondent-Corporation. The said order is effective till today but after disposal of this writ petition, it will not remain effective and if before any order is passed in the injunction matter by the trial court, the authorities take all the aforesaid steps, which the petitioner apprehends, the injunction matter is bound to become infructuous. 7. In this context, (earned counsel for the respondents relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of Kalabharati Advertising V/s. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and Others, reported in A.I.R. 2010 Supreme Court 3745, in paragraph 22 of which it has been held that the forum of the writ court cannot be used for the. purpose of giving interim relief as the only and the final relief to any litigant and if the Court comes to the conclusion that, the matter requires adjudication by some other appropriate forum and relegates the said party to that forum, it should not grant any interim relief in favour of such a litigant for an interregnum period till the said party approaches the alternative forum and obtains interim refief. In the instant case, the matter is different as the interim relief is not being given either as the only relief or as the final relief to the petitioner nor this Court is giving any direction to the petitioner to approach the trial court by filing a suit and obtain interim relief by filing an injunction petition, rather the petitioner had already approached the trial court by way of filing the suit more than a year prior to the filing of this writ petition and had also filed an injunction petition several months back. The question is only that the suit and the injunction matter are unnecessarily being delayed causing hardship. 8. The object of such an interim order is to protect a litigant against any injury and to ensure that the matter does not become either infructuous or fait accompli before any decision is taken in the injunction matter by the appropriate authority. Hence, in those circumstances, such relief sometimes becomes essential, specially when the matter is being unnecessarily delayed and respondents are not appearing in the suit despite receipt of notices, merely with a view to outwit the plaintiff-petitioner to get all the works done for which injunction is sought before any order is passed by the trial court. In this regard reference may be made to two decisions of the Apex Court in case of Zenit Matapiast Private Limited V/s. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (2009)10 S.C.C. 388 as well as in case of State of Assam V/s. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha, reported in (2009)5 S.C.C. 694. 9. Considering the aforesaid principles of law as well as the facts and circumstances of this case, the trial court is directed to decide the injunction matter within one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order in accordance with law without giving any undue adjournment to any of the parties. It may be noted that this Court has not given any opinion about merit or otherwise of the petitioners claim and the trial court shall decide the said matter on its own merit in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. 10. It may be noted that this Court has not given any opinion about merit or otherwise of the petitioners claim and the trial court shall decide the said matter on its own merit in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. 10. Till the injunction matter is decided by the abovementioned trial court, any No Objection Certificate issued by the Collector, Saharsa pertaining to the land in question to any one shall remain inoperative and no dealership of petrol pump over the suit land shall be awarded by the Corporation.