JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 21.02.2005 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC has been dismissed. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and along with the suit an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC was filed; the trial court by its order dated 13.04.2000 rejected the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) CPC; the appeal was allowed and the prayers made in the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC made by the plaintiff were granted by the first appellate court. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 328/2000, which based on the agreement of the parties, came to be decided by this Court on 18.07.2000; the operative portion of the order dated 18.07.2000 reads as under:- "The parties have produced two sets of photographs of the site before me as No.1 to 7. They are taken on record. Both the learned counsel agree that during pendency of the suit, the petitioner will be free to complete the building, structure whereof is apparent in the photographs No.1, 2, 3 & 4, so also in the other three photographs. So far as disputed portion is concerned, it is agreed that till the construction of the main building is completed and/or the present Contractor leaves the site, the petitioner do not propose to raise construction towards the side of the plaintiff. However, if till then, the original suit is not decided, the petitioner will be at liberty to move appropriate application for construction of boundary wall as well as soak pit etc. on the land situated in between the building and the pillar visible in the bottom of the photographs No. 1, 2 & 5 in which event, the learned trial court shall decide the application on its own merits after hearing both the parties as to whether it thinks appropriate to grant permission to the petitioner on his giving undertaking to remove the construction in the event of the suit being decreed. In view of this agreement of the parties, the revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned trial court to proceed with the trial of the suit most expeditiously and to complete it in any case within a period of one year from today. The parties to bear their own costs of this revision." 5. In view of the liberty granted, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 CPC before the trial court for the purpose of raising the boundary wall and for construction of soak pit and also produced undertaking as required by order dated 18.07.2000 passed by this Court. 6. However, the prayer made was contested by the plaintiff. 7. The trial court by its order dated 21.02.2005 rejected the application noticing the order passed by the first appellate court, opining that if permission was granted, the same was likely to result in complications and as the High Court has directed for expeditious disposal, the suit itself can be decided at an early date and rejected the application. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition; this Court by order dated 06.09.2007 passed the following order:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition is admitted. Heard learned counsel on the stay application. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner will be entitled to construct the soak pit and boundary wall at the place as mentioned in the order dated 18.07.2000 on his furnishing the undertaking in the trial Court afresh to the effect that in the event of suit being decreed, the petitioner will remove the boundary wall and the soak pit as may be constructed in pursuance of this order of this Court." 9. D.B. Special Appeal (W) No. 971/2007 preferred by the plaintiff-respondent against the order dated 06.09.2007 was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 23.04.2010. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 21.02.2005 passed by the trial court is in total ignorance of the order dated 18.07.2000 passed in the revision petition by this Court and the same was based on the order passed by the lower appellate court dated 11.05.2000, which order stood merged in the order dated 18.07.2000 and the same cannot be sustained. 11. 11. On a query made by this Court regarding the present status of the disputed land, subsequent to the order dated 06.09.2007 passed in the present writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner frankly submitted that in view of the pending writ petition and the fact that the petitioner is a public corporation, the construction of boundary wall and the soak pit has not taken place. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that after fixing of the matter for hearing by this Court on 18.11.2014, the petitioner has put up fence at the disputed site. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein, despite order dated 06.0.2007 and dismissal of plaintiff's appeal by the Division Bench by order dated 23.04.2010, the petitioner has chosen not to put the disputed land to the use permitted by this Court by order dated 06.09.2007 and has rather chosen to follow the order impugned dated 21.02.2005, it appears that the petitioner has lost interest in putting the disputed land to use at least during the pendency of the litigation. 14. In view of the conduct of the petitioner subsequent to passing of the order dated 06.09.2007, the order passed by the trial court does not require any interference in extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial of the suit most expeditiously keeping in view the spirit of the order dated 18.07.2000 passed in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 328/2000, wherein, it was expected of the trial court to proceed with the trial so as to complete it within a period of one year.Petition dismissed. *******