JUDGMENT Mr. T.P.S. Mann, J.: (Oral) - The plaintiff has filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of directions to the trial Court to expedite the hearing of her application for ad interim injunction filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. As is apparent from the interim orders (Annexures P-6 to P-14) passed by the trial Court from time to time, the suit was filed by the petitioner on 1.12.2011. On entrustment, the suit was taken up on 2.12.2011 and notice issued to the defendants for 15.12.2011. While dispensing with the requisite notice under Section 80 of the Code, the trial Court also issued notice to the defendants on the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. On 15.12.2011 CDPO, Mehal Kalan appeared on behalf of the defendants No. 3 to 6. Defendant No.7 was also represented. However, service of defendants No.1 and 2 was not complete. Accordingly, defendants No.1 and 2 were summoned for 10.1.2012. On 10.1.2012, CDPO, Mehal Kalan put in appearance on behalf of defendants No. 1 to 6. On request made for filing the written statement, proceedings were adjourned to 1.3.2012. Written statement was, however, not filed on 1.3.2012 for the reason that the CDPO, Mehal Kalan informed the Court about having not received the sanction from the department. The proceedings were adjourned to 29.3.2012. On that date, Government Pleader put in appearance on behalf of the defendants No. 2, 3 and 6 and filed memo. of appearance. The proceedings were adjourned to 16.4.2012 for filing of written statement. On 16.4.2012, the Government Pleader appeared on behalf of defendants No. 1, 4 and 5 also and filed memo. of appearance. The proceedings were further adjourned to 1.5.2012 for filing of the written statement and reply by the defendants. When written statement could not be filed on behalf of defendants No.1 to 6, the trial Court vide order dated 1.5.2012 struck of their defence and adjourned the suit proceedings to 16.5.2012 for filing replication and arguments on the stay application. On 16.5.2012, the Court adjourned the proceedings to 7.6.2012 for hearing arguments on stay application as well as for framing issues. On 7.6.2012, Government Pleader representing defendants No. 1 to 6 filed an application that he be allowed to file the written statement. On 16.5.2012, the Court adjourned the proceedings to 7.6.2012 for hearing arguments on stay application as well as for framing issues. On 7.6.2012, Government Pleader representing defendants No. 1 to 6 filed an application that he be allowed to file the written statement. Copy of the application was supplied to the plaintiff and proceedings adjourned to 23.7.2012 for filing reply to the same. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has informed the Court that on 23.7.2012, the trial Court did not take up the matter on account of some urgent criminal matter and the proceedings in the suit have now been adjourned to 10.9.2012. He states that under these circumstances, directions be issued to the trial Court to expedite the decision of the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. 4. Without commenting on the merits of the case but keeping in view the interest of justice, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to decide the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. on 10.9.2012 itself or, in any case, within a week thereafter. ---------0.B.S.0------------