Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.— Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 3 has been accepted by Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate, whereas Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate, has put appearance for opposite parties no. 1 and 2. Heard learned counsel for parties. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.11.2012 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2012 (Kumari Devi and others Vs. Satish Chandra) whereby appeal preferred against the order dated 9.2.2012 passed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 has been allowed and the status quo order granted by the trial court has been set aside. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a suit for cancellation of will-deed was preferred by the petitioner being the plaintiff. The opposite parties no. 1 and 2 are the defendants in the said suit. Learned trial court after hearing the parties to the case had allowed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and vide order dated 9.2.2012 had directed the parties to the case to maintain status quo with respect to property in question. The opposite parties feeling aggrieved have preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2012 which has been allowed by the impugned order. Submission is that the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 are in possession of property in question on the basis of will-deed dated 21.10.2009 against which suit for cancellation has been filed.The plaintiff-petitioner being the son of late Vindeshwari Prasad has a right to claim the property in question. The aforesaid will has been executed fraudulently. Learned counsel for opposite parties no. 1 and 2 on the other hand submitted that on the basis of aforesaid will-deed the property in question has been registered in the name of opposite parties no. 1 and 2 and they are in possession over the property in question. Plaintiff has no right to claim the property in question as he has no relation with late Vindeshwari Prasad, who has executed the said will. It is further submitted that no case for grant of temporary injunction is made out in favour of plaintiff and as such the trial court had committed wrong in granting the temporary injunction. The appellate court has come to conclusion that since the property in question is registered in the name of opposite parties no. 1 and 2 as such no prima facie case is made in favour of plaintiff. The appellate court has come to conclusion that since the property in question is registered in the name of opposite parties no. 1 and 2 as such no prima facie case is made in favour of plaintiff. I have considered the submissions made by parties counsel. The Suit filed against the cancellation of will-deed was registered as Regular Suit No. 78 of 2011 (Satish Chandra Gupta Vs. Kumari Devi and others) and the learned trial court is ceased with the matter. It is expedient in the interest of justice that during pendency of the proceedings before the trial court the nature of the property in question is not disturbed. Since opposite parties no. 1 and 2 are in possession over the property in question as such in case status quo as existing today is maintained by the parties to the case no injury can be said to have caused to opposite parties no. 1 and 2. Learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no. 1 and 2 have given undertakings before this Court that they will cooperate in early disposal of the suit and would not seek unnecessary adjournments. It is informed that written statement has been filed and the case is at the stage of evidence. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the pending regular suit shall be decided expeditiously. The learned trial court shall make all possible endeavour to decide the suit in question, expeditiously, say within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the court concerned. Till the disposal of the suit or for a period of six months whichever is earlier the parties to the case shall maintain status quo. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. _____________