ORDER : Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.94/2017 which is pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and I Additional J.M.F.C. at Ranebennur. Along with the plaint an application was filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) seeking an order of temporary injunction against the defendants restraining them from representing as Secretary or President or members of Barathiya Adima Jati Seva Sangha, Ranebennur or BAJSS New Delhi on the premise that they are strangers to the said Sangha and BAJSS. Initially an ex parte order of temporary injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently by order dated 27.04.2017 the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. was rejected and the ex parte order of temporary injunction was vacated. Being aggrieved by the order of trial Court plaintiff preferred M.A.No.7/2017 before the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Ranebennur. By judgment dated 14.09.2017 the said appeal has been dismissed and the order of the trial court has been confirmed. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this writ petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the caveator/ respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. 3. During the course of submission, it has been brought to my notice that the suit is at the stage of trial. That plaintiff’s evidence has been recorded and it is for cross-examination of plaintiff. However, the apprehension expressed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the findings and conclusions arrived at by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court while considering the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. would inevitably come in the way of deciding the suit as the same would influence the learned trial Judge in holding that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit, and therefore, on that basis the suit may be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is also a likelihood of the suit being dismissed on the ground of res judicata as has been observed in the orders impugned and hence on these two questions the impugned orders would be an impediment for the plaintiff to establish his case. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is also a likelihood of the suit being dismissed on the ground of res judicata as has been observed in the orders impugned and hence on these two questions the impugned orders would be an impediment for the plaintiff to establish his case. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent submitted that there is no merit in the appeal as concurrently both the Courts have held against the plaintiff, the suit is at the stage of trial and that at this stage this Court may not interfere in the matter and that the suit may be disposed off. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is noted that the aforesaid apprehensions expressed by learned counsel for the petitioner are in the helm of law. They are in fact Questions of law and facts and hence they are mixed questions of fact and law. The same could be decided only after conclusion of the trial. Whatever observations have been expressed while deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. are only limited to the consideration of the said application. Ultimately it is for the trial Court to decide as to whether the plaintiff indeed has the locus standi to file the suit and if so, whether the plaintiff could be granted any relief in the suit. The same has to be adjudicated upon after conclusion of the trial and on consideration of the pleadings and evidence on record. Merely because certain observations have been made during the course of consideration of an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. the same cannot weigh or influence the trial Court while adjudicating the main suit. Similarly the issue regarding res-judicata would have to be answered after considering the pleadings and evidence on record. In the circumstances, without interfering with the impugned order and judgment, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on its own merits after considering the pleadings and evidence on record and not on the basis of what has been opined or observed while considering the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed off.