IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.874 of 2008. Date of decision: 08.04.2009 Pyare Lal and Others …Petitioners Versus Jai Singh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioners: Mr.Ashok Tyagi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms.Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This is the plaintiffs’ petition against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan reversing the order of the learned trial Court passed in a petition under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the code of Civil Procedure granting an order of status-quo qua the nature and possession of the suit land. The learned appellate Court, in appeal, after consideration of the material on record, vacated the order. I must observe that passing of an order of status quo without determining the fact situation is no 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 order in law. It is for the Court to clearly state/specify as to what status quo actually means. The order passed by the learned appellate Court requires no interference. The only modification which is made is that the suit property will abide by the principle of lis pendense which otherwise is the natural consequence. Learned counsel representing the respondent submits that the plaintiffs be put to terms as the suit instituted by the plaintiffs is frivolous and vexatious. That point need not be determined here as it will be open to the defendant to claim exemplary costs in case the submission made by the defendant is adjudicated in his favour. This petition is accordingly disposed. No order as to costs. April 8, 2009. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.