PER CURIAM.
On April 13, 2005, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov=T. CODE ANN. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52. Relators also filed a motion seeking emergency relief.
In this proceeding, relators challenge the trial court's April 6, 2005, order granting a temporary injunction. Relators have also filed an accelerated appeal from this order. Because there is a statutory provision for appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction, TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(4) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05), relators have a remedy by appeal. However, relators argue that the remedy by appeal is inadequate because an accelerated appeal will not be concluded before the trial, scheduled to occur on June 13, 2005, or before the hearing on real parties' motion for summary judgment, scheduled to occur on May 6, 2005.
Section 51.014 provides that an interlocutory appeal from the grant or denial of a temporary injunction does not stay commencement of trial in the trial court. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). Nonetheless, the Rules of Appellate Procedure provide a remedy by allowing parties appealing interlocutory orders to seek temporary relief pursuant to Rule 29.3, pending disposition of the accelerated appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 29.3. Relators have not sought temporary relief under this rule, but the availability of temporary relief on appeal is sufficient to establish that relators' remedy by appeal is adequate.
Accordingly, we deny relators' petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency relief.