1. DORAB PATEL, J.-Mr. Zainul Abidin stated that this petition has been filed only because the petitioner was aggrieved by the observations of the High Court which have been specified in paragraph 1 of the petition for leave. And, learned counsel stated that these observations wore incorrect, because they were contrary to the inspection note of the District Judge, which has been filed in the Paper Book at page 55.
2. The observations by which the petitioner is aggrieved have been made by the High Court whilst' disposing of a claim for interlocutory relief, and it is settled law that observations in orders disposing of interlocutory appli--cations are always of a tentative nature. Therefore, the petitioner's grievancethat he has been prejudiced by these observations is not justified. However, we clarify that the Civil Judge, who is trying the suit, will decide the case according to the evidence before him and if necessary, he will inspect the premises in dispute. In view of these observations Mr. Zainul Abidin does not press the petition. However, on our enquiries, we were shocked to find that the impugned order arises out of a suit which was filed in 1973, but has not yet been decided. We, therefore, direct the trial Court to decide the suit before the end of the long vacation.
3. The petition is dismissed subject to the above-mentioned observations. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.