JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.8.2011 passed by the learned Additional Dist. Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Misc. Case No.41/2011 whereby the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction has been rejected and allowing the application for temporary injunction of the defendants, the plaintiffs by mandatory injunction have been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property. 2. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property according to the plaintiff is jointly purchased plot of UIT situated at 4-F-60, New Power House Road, Jodhpur way back in the year 1973, on which the ground floor was constructed in the year 1974 and the first floor was constructed in the year 1998. Accordingly to the plaintiffs, the plot of land was purchased in the name of Prabhu Narayan Mathur to facilitate the loan on the said plot of land, whereas the construction was raised by the funds contributed by the elder brother - husband of the present appellant No.1 late Sh. Kailash Narayan, who expired. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Sr. Advocate submitted that without any such prayer to hand-over the vacant possession of portion of the property in which the plaintiffs were residing, the learned Court below has allowed the connected application for temporary injunction of the defendant while rejecting the application for temporary injunction of the plaintiff. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Metro Marins and anr. v. Bonus Watch Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2005 (1) Apex Court Judgments 436 (SC) . 4. On the other hand, Mr. M.D. Boob, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant respondent submitted that the plaintiffs were residing in the said portion only under the licence of the defendant, which was revoked and therefore, the plaintiffs, legal heirs of deceased Kailash Narayan had no right to reside in the said property and therefore, the mandatory injunction granted on his counter claim was justified. He also submitted that on account of dispute between the parties , the defendants also had to engage guard for his personal safety and security. He is residing at the first floor of the house and has possession over some portion of the ground floor also. 5. He also submitted that on account of dispute between the parties , the defendants also had to engage guard for his personal safety and security. He is residing at the first floor of the house and has possession over some portion of the ground floor also. 5. Be that as it may, the parties being close relatives, families of real brothers, this Court is of the opinion that the status quo with regard to the suit property should be maintained by both the parties during the pendency of the suit filed by the plaintiffs and in the circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court is requested to expedite the trial itself. At the same, it is also considered expedient to direct the appellants not to create any nuisance or cause any physical harm or embarrassment or harassment to the defendant No.1. 6. In the circumstances of the case, the present appeal is accordingly disposed of with a request to the learned trial Court to decide the suit itself preferably within a period of six months from today and during the trial, both the parties shall maintain status quo of the suit property as it exists today. No order as to costs.Appeal Disposed of. *******