Viney Mittal and j. JJ.

1. Plaintiffs are the petitioners before this Court. Along with the suit, they filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code ofcivil Procedure for issuance of ad-interim injunction. The learned trial court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs. On an appeal filed by them, the learned appellate court allowed the appeal and restrained defendants No.1 to 3 from implementing the new Warabandi as confirmed vide decision dated January 31,2003 of defendant No.3 Notice of motion was issued by this court vide order dated May 23,2003. Operation of the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge was stayed.

2. The suit in question was filed by the plaintiffs on February 20,2003. In these circumstances, it is apparent that the order dated January 31,2003 for implementation of warabandi has remained operative for a period of more than three years. In these circumstances, There would absolutely be no justification to issue any interim direction in favour of the plaintiffs, at this stage. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed. However, the learned trial court is directed to decide the main suit filed by the p