JUDGMENT : 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order made in C.M.A.No. 8 of 2010 confirming the order made in I.A.No. 65 of 2010 in O.S.No. 57 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karaikal. 2. The petitioner herein as plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents herein. During the pendency of the suit, he filed an application in I.A.No. 65 of 2010 seeking for interim injunction. The learned District Munsif passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo in the suit property excluding the portion leased out to one Sabthaswaram Charitable Trust until the rights of the petitioner is decided in the main suit. The learned District Munsif passed such an order by taking note of Ex.B2 lease deed wherein and whereby the 4th defendant had let out a part of the suit property to the said Sabthaswaram Charitable Trust. 3. The said order was appealed against before the District Judge, Karaikal by the petitioner herein. The first appellate court also concurred with the finding of the trial Court that the 4th defendant leased out a portion of the property in favour of the said private organisation viz., Sabthaswaram Charitable Trust, which is a free old age home. The first appellate court also pointed out that the said portion has been leased out for a period of three years on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- for the first year and Rs.5,000/-for the next two years. Considering the said circumstances, the first appellate court confirmed the findings of the learned District Munsif and thereby dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved against the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the fourth respondent has no right to lease out the property in favour of the Sabthaswaram Charitable Trust and therefore the status quo order granted by the trial Court should also be extended to the property leased out to the said Trust. 5. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. 6. The suit filed by the petitioner is one for bare injunction. 5. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. 6. The suit filed by the petitioner is one for bare injunction. Pending disposal of the suit, he filed an application seeking for interim injunction in which a status quo order has been granted by the trial Court excluding the property leased out to the said Sabthaswaram Charitable Trust by the fourth defendant. Whether the fourth respondent has got the right to lease out the property or not is not the question which need to be gone into at the time of considering the interim application, especially when the suit itself is for bare injunction and the interim application is also for interim injunction. 7. At any event, when the Courts below have granted status quo order in respect of other items and have excluded the property let out for Sabthaswaram Charitable Trust, which is said to be a free old age home, I find no irregularity or infirmity in the orders passed by the courts below. Since the suit is of the year 2010, and the same is also for a bare injunction, it would suffice, if the trial court is directed to take up the suit and dispose of the same at an early date. Therefore, while dismissing the Civil Revision Petition, I direct the trial Court to take up the suit in O.S.No. 57 of 2010 and dispose of the same within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, the connected M.P. is closed. No costs.