JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 6.7.2011 passed by the learned Additional Dist. Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Original Suit No.9/2010 - Narayan Singh v. Raghuvansh Vidhyapeeth and anr. whereby the application filed by the defendant No.2 - appellant Chopasani Shikshan Samiti under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. came to be rejected by the learned trial Court. 2. The original temporary injunction was granted by the learned trial Court vide order dated 17.4.2010 in the present suit filed by the respondent - plaintiff Narayan Singh for cancellation of gift deed, by agreement between both the parties to the extent that defendants Raghuvansh Vidhyapeeth and Chopasani Shikshan Samiti shall not further alienate the suit property and will also maintain status quo with respect to suit property. 3. The defendant Chopasani Shikshan Samiti filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. to the extent that there was no agreement between the parties about grant of status quo order and only agreement was with respect to non-alienation of the suit property further. The learned trial Court rejected the said application under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. and being aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed the present appeal before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant - defendant Mr. Ajitabh Acharya submitted that a gift of 8 bighas of land out of 17 bighas of land belonging to the respondent No.1 - plaintiff Narayan Singh was gifted to Raghuvansh Vidhyapeeth with a view to set up an educational institution for girls and the donee - defendant Raghuvansh Vidhyapeeth further gifted the said property to the present appellant - defendant No.2 Chopasani Shikshan Samiti, Jodhpur and now the defendant No.2 Chopasani Shikshan Samiti intends to set up an educational institution for imparting education both to boys and girls. The present suit for cancellation of the gift deed was filed by the plaintiff Narayan Singh mainly on the ground that the land in question was intended to be used solely for the purpose of setting up of school for girls and not for any other purpose. 5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the defendant No.2 - present appellant Chopasani Shikshan Samiti Mr. 5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the defendant No.2 - present appellant Chopasani Shikshan Samiti Mr. Ajitabh Acharya submitted that the defendants would not undertake construction for any other purpose other than setting up of an educational institution and therefore, the status quo order granted by the Court below may be modified and as far as restraint against alienation against the suit property is concerned, they would abide by the same during the pendency of the suit. On this, the learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff Mr. K.N. Vyas submitted that the present appeal may be disposed of and with this modified order, the learned trial Court may be requested to expedite the trial of the suit. 6. Having heard the learned counsels and upon the aforesaid undertaking of the learned counsel for the defendant No.2 - appellant Chopasani Shikshan Samiti Mr. Ajitabh Acharya, the present appeal is disposed of and the impugned temporary injunction order dated 17.4.2010 and order dated 6.7.2011 are modified to the extent that defendant No.2 - appellant Chopasani Shikshan Samiti shall not alienate the suit property further in any manner so as to create third party rights without the leave of the Court and any construction work undertaken on the disputed suit property of the educational institution shall remain subject to final decision of the suit. With this modification, the temporary injunction application shall stand disposed of and the learned trial Court is requested to expedite the trial of the suit itself and preferably decide the same within a period of two years from now. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the present appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.Appeal disposed of. *******