Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—By this petition, Rajkumar Silk Mills through its Partner- Shri Swami Rajbharati Chananmal Sahani, has approached this Court being aggrieved by an order dated 11.9.2004 passed below Exh. 6 in Special Civil Suit No. 214 of 2004 by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Surat. 2. It so happened that when this matter came up for consideration on 21.9.2004, the Court passed the following order: “Notice for final disposal returnable on 29th September, 2004. In the meantime ad interim relief in terms of Para 10(D). To be listed in the first Board. D.S. permitted”. 3. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to look into the contents of Para-10(D): “Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to restrain the respondents, their servants and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the disputed land more particularly mentioned in Para 1 of the petition as well as the plaint, in any manner whatsoever”. 4. It so happened that on 29.9.2004 – returnable date, when the matter came up before the learned Judge, the Court found that the interim relief granted in terms of para-10(D) was travelling beyond the main prayer and therefore, Court passed the following order: “This Court vide order dated 21st September, 2004 had granted ad-interim relief in terms of Para 10 (D) of the petition, which should not have been granted, as it has travelled beyond the main prayer. In fact, prayer in terms of 10 (C) should have been granted. However, since by mistake prayer 10 (D) has been granted, the parties are directed to restore the position which was prevailing on the date of the order i.e. from 21st September, 2004. Further, the Court Commissioner appointed by the Trial Court shall go to the disputed land in question on 4th October, 2004 at 11:00 a.m. and shall prepare the panchnama without any rider, as was directed by the Trial Court. Representatives from both the sides are permitted to remain present at the time when the panchnama is prepared by the Court Commissioner. Rule returnable on 20th October, 2004. D.S.P.” 5. Today, when the matter is called out, learned advocate, Mr. Representatives from both the sides are permitted to remain present at the time when the panchnama is prepared by the Court Commissioner. Rule returnable on 20th October, 2004. D.S.P.” 5. Today, when the matter is called out, learned advocate, Mr. Nirad Buch appearing for Nanavati Advocates states that the panchnama is already prepared and therefore, now, the learned Judge before whom the Special Civil Suit is pending is required to take the same into consideration in accordance with law. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Utpal Panchal, appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 states that the possession is required to be restored as mentioned in order dated 29.9.2004. 7. This Court is of the opinion that the petition has become infructuous and learned advocate, Mr. Utpal Panchal, cannot be heard today i.e. 26th June, 2013 saying that position as was ordered to be restored is not restored by the present petitioner because during this period of about 10 years, there is no application filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 complaining of dispossession. Be that as it may, now long period of about 10 years has elapsed. It is deemed proper that this petition be disposed of with the following observations. (i) The learned Judge shall take into consideration the evidence in the form of panchnama at the time of disposing of suit in accordance with law. 8. At the request of Mr. Panchal, it is directed that the learned Judge shall decide the suit in accordance with law without being influenced by the fact that an order was passed by this Court. 9. Present petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.