2013(2)SCALE277, (2013)9SCC311, 2013(2)WLN49, 2013II AD (S.C.) 374, AIR2013SC2939, 2013(2) AKR 16, 2013(4)ALD1, 2013(2)ALLMR(SC)468, 2013 (99) ALR 728, 2013 2 AWC1294SC, 2013(2)CDR546(SC), JT2013(2)SC466, 2013(3)KarLJ439, 2013(4)KCCR2631, 2013(2)RCR(Civil)180, 2013(1)RCR(Rent)295, 2013 119 RD794, 

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. In our considered opinion, the learned single judge has completely misconstrued the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and has committed serious error in deciding the scope of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. As noticed above the Civil Judge while granting ad-interim injunction very categorically observed in the order that respective rights of the parties shall be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit. The very fact that Plaintiff No.2 is in possession of the property as a tenant under Plaintiff No.1 and possession of Plaintiff No.2 was not denied, the interim protection was given to Plaintiff No.2 against the threatened action of the defendants to evict her without following the 5Page 6 due process of law. In our considered opinion, the order passed by the learned single judge cannot be sustained in law. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court in the aforesaid appeal arising out of the order of injunction. However, before parting with the order we are of the view that since the suit is pending for a long time the trial court shall hear and dispose of the suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It goes without saying that the trial court shall not be influenced by any of the observation made in the order passed by the appellate court as also by this court and the suit shall be decided on its own merits.