JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Petitioners have come up in this petition with the prayer commanding the respondents not to interefere in the peaceful occupation of the petitioners over the land in dispute and for ensuring compliance of the orders dated 20.2.1995 and 20.7.1995 passed in the suit. 3. It appears that the petitioners were granted ex parte injunction in the suit on 20.2.1995 and finally the injunction application was allowed on 20.7.1995. The suit was latter decreed but the decree was set aside and the matter continues to remain pending. 4. The petitioners in short want that the injunction order passed on 20.7.1995 may be followed and that the respondents who are disobeying the same may be stopped from raising any further constructions over the land in dispute. 5. The courts below by the orders dated 20.1.2014 and 28.1.2014 have issued appropriate directions for ensuring compliance of the above orders but the said directions are falling short with the result the respondents are continuing with the constructions. 6. Petitioners have already filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A C.P.C. complaining about the disobedience of the above order. 7. The court is obliged to see that its orders are not flouted and no party is able to take law into its hand so as to violate the injunction order of the court. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it appropriate to dispose of the petition with the direction to the court concerned to decide the petitioners' application under Order 39 Rule 2A C.P.C. and if possible the suit itself in accordance with law most expeditiously by curtailing all unnecessary adjournments and fixing short dates within a period of six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order and in the meantime ensuring that the injunction which has been granted to the petitioners on 20.7.1995 is not further disobeyed, if necessary, by taking help of police.