Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.— Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned brief holder of learned counsel who has filed caveat on behalf of respondent. 2. Petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S. no.463 of 2000. Trial Court/Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Court no.2, Bulandshahr on 9.11.2012 passed an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo during the pendency of the suit. Against the said order defendant respondent filed misc. civil appeal no.80 of 2012. District Judge Bulandshahr allowed the appeal on 30.1.2013 and set aside the status quo order passed by the trial court which has been challenged through this writ petition. 3. Firstly, there was no pressing need to consider temporary injunction application after 12 years of filing of the suit. Secondly, in para 11 of the plaint it has been stated that there was some oral agreement for sale for immovable property in dispute. Temporary injunction order on the basis of such agreement is not warranted 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that respondent may transfer the property during pendency of the suit. If it is so done plaintiffs petitioners would be at liberty to implead the purchasers also in the suit. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the order passed by the lower appellate court. However, trial court is directed to decide the suit very expeditiously. Absolutely no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to any of the parties. If any adjournment is granted to any of the parties then it shall be on a very heavy cost which shall not be less than Rs. 500/- per adjournment payable before the next date failing which defaulter party shall not be permitted to participate in the proceedings. 5. Writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of. _____________