ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff challenging order dt.17.05.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. The Board of Revenue vide its order dt.17.05.2018 decided two revision petition No.7416/2016 filed by the respondent and revision petition No.4990/2016 filed by the petitioner. The Board of Revenue allowed the revision petition No.7416/2016 filed by the respondent and dismissed the revision petition No.4990/2016 filed by the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed suit for correction of entries in the revenue Court before S.D.O., Udaipurwati District, Jhunjhunu. The application for temporary injunction was also filed along with main suit and the S.D.O., Udaipurwati vide its order dt.19.11.2015, accepted the application of the petitioner and directed the respondent to maintain status quo in regard to revenue entries in respect of khasra Nos.578, 579, 580 & 581 admeasuring 1.28 hectare. 3. The respondents felt aggrieved against order dt.19.11.2015 and filed appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Sikar and vide order dt.09.06.2016, he accepted the appeal of the respondent and modified order that the petitioner will not create any hindrance in use and development of the land in question and the appellant would be free to undertake any development work. 4. The petitioner as well as respondents filed above mentioned two revision petitions before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue vide order dt.17.05.2018 modified the order dt.09.06.2016 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and set aside the order dt.19.11.2015 passed by the S.D.O., Udaipurwati. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that main suit is yet to be decided by the S.D.O., Udaipurwati and giving positive direction in favour of the respondent, would further create complications and third party rights and as such counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court may give direction to the S.D.O., Udaipurwati to decide the main suit expeditiously and further prayed that status quo with regard to property in question is required to be maintained by both the parties in order of avoid further complications. 5. Mr. Sunil Vashishtha, counsel for the respondents has appeared and submitted that the respondents are in possession of the land in question and they should be allowed to make use of the land in accordance with law, and no direction is required to be given to maintain the status quo. 6. 5. Mr. Sunil Vashishtha, counsel for the respondents has appeared and submitted that the respondents are in possession of the land in question and they should be allowed to make use of the land in accordance with law, and no direction is required to be given to maintain the status quo. 6. I have heard both the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. 7. This Court finds that suit filed by the petitioner in the Court of S.D.O., Udaipurwati is required to be decided expeditiously. This Court is also conscious of the fact that pendency of case may result into further complications, in case the status quo will not be maintained and the third party rights may be created during pendency of the suit. 8. The present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the S.D.O., Udaipurwati to decide the suit filed by the petitioner expeditiously but in no case later than six months. This Court also deems it proper to direct both the parties to maintain status quo and property in question may not be alienated during proceedings before the competent Court. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of.