CR No.5227 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CR No.5227 of 2008 Date of decision March 16, 2009 Moti Ram and another ....... Petitioners Versus Gram Panchayat and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. D. N. Ganeriwala, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Malik, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The revision is against the order allowing the appeal filed by the defendant. The complaint of the plaintiff is that the trial Court had granted status quo and the Appellate Authority ought to have been loathe to interfere with such an order. 2. The Appellate Authority, while allowing the appeal, has observed that the suit was instituted in the year 2006 and there was no document of proof of possession from the year 1995. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the suit itself is only for a declaration that the mutation effected in the year 1996 was not proper and the defendant had not established that it had taken possession from the plaintiff at any time. At the interlocutory stage the Court will be concerned only on the proof of possession and the prima facie case from the documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The Appellate Court has considered the fact that there was no document of possession and has CR No.5227 of 2008 2 disallowed the order of status quo issued by the trial Court. The Supreme Court itself has frowned on the practice of Court ordering status quo without a clear finding as to what the status quo is. The vague observation by the trial Court was rightly interfered in appeal by the Appellate Court. I find no merit to interfere in revision. 3. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 16, 2009 archana