JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra for the petitioners and Sri Brijesh Ojha for the opposite party. 3. This petition has been filed for setting aside part of order dated 1.3.2016, by which the court below has declined to grant ex parte interim injunction. 4. In the suit, i.e. O.S. No. 200/2016 filed on 1.3.2016, the court below issued summons to the defendants, fixing 5.4.2016 for written statement and 12.4.2016 for framing issues. In the application for interim injunction, the court below issued notice fixing 15.3.2016 for disposal. Although steps have been taken, but the defendants have not put appearance. However, the court below has not granted any interim injunction to the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has filed documents showing that name of the petitioner has been recorded in column 3 of the khatauni as asami since long time. The petitioner has also filed a suit for recording his name as bhumidhar of the land in dispute. The suit was initially dismissed by the trial court, but in the appeal, name of the petitioner, as directed to be deleted from column 3 of the khatauni, has been set aside and the entry has been restored. The petitioner has also filed various documents to show that he is in actual possession over the land in dispute. 6. In the circumstances of the case, as the court below has issued notices to the defendants in view of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, it is appropriate that the court below may pass appropriate order on the application for interim injunction, either on the next date fixed in the suit or if for any reason, the suit is adjourned on that day, then within a period of three weeks thereafter, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 7. For a period of two months, the parties shall maintain status quo on the spot. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.