JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned State counsel and perused the record. 2. As the controversy involved in the present case is trivial in nature so with the consent of learned counsels for the parties present today, the present writ petition is finally disposed of at the admission stage. Accordingly, notice to O.P.Nos. 2 to 4 are dispensed with. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed a regular suit for cancellation of sale deed and for permanent injunction registered as Regular Suit No. 1010/2013 in which he has moved and application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, he further submits that the same is not decided due to lingering attitude adopted by the respondents, so a direction may be given to opposite party No. 1 to decide the same expeditiously. 4. After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record, the interest of justice will sub-serve if a direction is issued to O.P. No. 1/Civil Judge, (Jr. Div.), South, Room No. 24, Sultanpur to decide the matter pending at his end at an early date. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to O.P. No. 1/Civil Judge, (Jr. Div.), South, Room No. 24, Sultanpur to consider and decide the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed in Regular Suit No. 1010/2013 pending at his end, expeditiously, say, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receiving certified copy of this order, after hearing the counsel for the parties concerned in accordance with law. 6. It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioners on merit.