JUDGMENT : A.S. Chandurkar, J. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners who are original plaintiffs are aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate Court to the extent it refused to restrain the defendants from disturbing their possession over the suit property. The suit as filed seeks relief of specific performance of agreement dated 14.06.1986 along with further relief of injunction. In that suit the plaintiffs filed an application seeking to restrain the defendants from disturbing their possession during the pendency of the suit. The said application was opposed by the defendants and the trial Court vide its order dated 05.10.2016 rejected the said application. The appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and restrained the defendants from creating any third party rights in the suit property. It however refused to grant temporary injunction as prayed for. 3. This Court while issuing the notice dated 01.11.2016 directed the parties to maintain status quo over the suit property. Shri Nitin Vyavahare, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the aforesaid interim order came to be passed in view of the order dated 23.06.2016 passed by Tahsildar recording a finding in the revenue proceedings that the petitioners were in possession. He further submits that the said order passed by the Tahsildar has been maintained by the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as by the Additional Collector. He therefore submits that if the proceedings in the suit are expedited by continuing the aforesaid interim order, the interests of justice would be served. 4. Shri A.M.Quazi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 supported the impugned order. According to him, the plaintiffs have taken advantage of the order dated 01.11.2016 and have thereafter cut the crops that were standing in the suit field on 08.11.2016. He further submits that Civil Application No.804/2017 has been filed praying that suitable action be taken against the petitioners for disobeying the order passed on 01.11.2016. 5. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the material on record, it can be seen that the appellate Court was pleased to restrain the defendants from creating any third party rights in the suit property. Insofar as the prayer for temporary injunction is concerned, the same was not granted. However, the order dated 01.11.2016 passed by this Court has been operating for a period of more than two half years. Insofar as the prayer for temporary injunction is concerned, the same was not granted. However, the order dated 01.11.2016 passed by this Court has been operating for a period of more than two half years. There is a dispute with regard to cutting of the crops by the plaintiffs. Adjudication of that dispute would also require recording of evidence. As the suit was filed in the year 2016, its proceedings can be expedited by continuing the order of status-quo as passed. 6. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the said application, the following order is passed : (i) The proceedings in R.C.S.No.30/2016 are expedited. The trial Court shall take efforts to decide the same by the end of December 2019. (ii) The order dated 01.11.2016 passed by this Court shall continue to operate during the pendency of the suit. The said interim arrangement is without prejudice to the rights of the parties. The trial Court shall not be influenced by this arrangement while deciding the proceedings. (iii) The defendants are at liberty to move appropriate application before the trial Court, if according them there is breach of the order of statusquo as passed. (iv) The plaintiffs shall take necessary steps to bring on record the legal heirs of the plaintiff no.7 before the trial Court. (v) Keeping all the contentions open on merits, the writ petition is disposed of with no orders as to costs. Civil Application also stands disposed of.