ORDER 1. This Special Leave Petition is filed by the petitioner- plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 11.11.2013 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No.2621 of 2013. 2. 'Petitioner-Plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 30.07.1996. In the aforesaid suit, an application was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents not to change the nature of the property, which was dismissed by the trial court and same was affirmed by the High Court. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner-plaintiff has filed another application under Section 151 of CPC praying for injunction to restrain respondent nos.6 to 11 from putting up any construction on the property in question. The trial court dismissed the said application holding that respondent nos.6 to 11 are bona fide purchasers of the property as against which the petitioner- plaintiff approached the High Court. By the impugned order, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by observing that any construction made by respondent nos.6 to 11 on the property in question would be subject to the outcome of the suit. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-plaintiff is before us. 4. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 05.12.2013, while passing interim order granting stay of implementation of the impugned order, there was a further direction by this Court directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to further construction of the property in question. Said order continued all along. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- plaintiff has submitted that in the suit, recording of evidence is complete and the matter is coming up for arguments. On the other hand, it is stated by learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the petitioner-plaintiff is trying to protract the litigation by filing one application or the other. 7. As much as, the Special Leave Petition itself is directed against an order arising out of interlocutory application in the pending suit, in view of the pendency of the suit, it is not desirable for us to record any finding on merits at this stage. 7. As much as, the Special Leave Petition itself is directed against an order arising out of interlocutory application in the pending suit, in view of the pendency of the suit, it is not desirable for us to record any finding on merits at this stage. As the suit is of the year 2008 and further this Court has granted order of status quo on 05.12.2013 and said order continued all along, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the Special Leave Petition by directing the trial court to dispose of the suit itself within a period of four months from today. Ordered accordingly. We further direct that status quo granted by this Court on 05.12.2013 shall continue to operate till the disposal of the suit. 8. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, it is open for the trial court to decide the issues which fall for consideration in the suit, on their own merit, without being influenced by the findings/observations of the High Court as well as this Court. 9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.