JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 4, Jodhpur Metropolitan, whereby the appeal fded by the respondents against grant of ad interim injunction dated 27.9.2013 by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan was set aside. 2. The ad interim order dated 27.9.2013 was passed by the trial Court injecting the respondents from collecting any funds in the name of the Samaj and not to spend the amount so collected. The Appellate Court by its order dated 11.10.2013 set aside the order dated 27.9.2013 and directed the trial Court to decide the temporary injunction application itself expeditiously. The order dated 11.10.2013 was questioned by the petitioner by filing the writ petition before this Court. 3. The writ petition came up before this Court on 18.12.2013, the matter was adjourned to 28.10.2013 permitting the respondents to file reply. On 28.10.2013, this Court directed filing of the reply by the respondents; fixed the matter on 8.11.2013 and both the parties were directed not to collect the funds and that they would not be entitled to disburse any fund so far collected by them, but the respondents were granted permission to make payment of Diwali get together expenses incurred on 20.10.2013 to the extent of 15% of the amount and they were required to submit the details. On 8.11.2013, time was granted to submit the details of expenses by the next date and the matter was fixed on 26.11.2013. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that ad interim prayer which was disposed of by the trial Court on 27.9.2013 was essentially directed at the function to be held on 20.10.2013 and as on account of the order passed by the Appellate Court on 11.10.2013, the said function has since been held on 20.10.2013, the writ petition has become in-fructuous, inasmuch as, the T.I. Application still remains pending before the trial Court and in the meanwhile, another ad interim injunction has been passed by the trial Court on 16.11.2013. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents despite direction of this Court dated 28.10.2013 have not produced the details of expenditure incurred by them and there is every likelihood of their taking advantage of the fact that they were able to hold the function on 20.10.2013, in the pending T.I. Application and in the main suit. 6. It is apparent from the tenor of the order passed by the trial Court on 27.9.2013 and the Appellate Court on 11.10.2013 that the said orders pertained to the function to be held on 20.10.2013 and once the said function dated 20.10.2013 has been held on account of the fact that the Appellate Court vacated the ad interim order passed by the trial Court and this Court despite hearing the matter on 18.10.2013 did not pass any interim order, the writ petition seeking to question the order dated 11.10.2013 has been rendered in-fructuous. 7. So far as the fact that the respondents having failed to submit the details of expenses incurred by them despite directions of this Court dated 28.10.2013 and 8.11.2013 is concerned, it would be open for the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the trial Court and it would be for the trial Court to take appropriate view on the said aspect. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner regarding misuse of the fact that the respondents were able to hold the function dated 20.10.2013, appears to be premature at this stage. As and when the said aspect is sought to be utilised by them, it would be open for the petitioner to make submissions in this regard at appropriate stage and before the appropriate forum. 8. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of as having become in-fructuous. The stay application is also dismissed. It is expected from the trial Court to decide the T.I. Application as expeditiously as possible and it is also expected of both the parties that they shall not seek unnecessary adjournments from the trial Court.Order accordingly. *******