IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.15683-CII of 2009 in CR NO.4436 OF 2008 DECIDED ON : 17.08.2009 Hoshiar Singh & another ... Petitioners versus Smt. Vinod Bala Sharma & another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the applicant-respondents. Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate for petitioners. AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Lower Appellate Court, whereby in an application filed by the respondents under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, a direction was issued to the parties to maintain status quo. The order has come in a suit challenging the sale deed allegedly executed by the mother of the respondents in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly argued that in fact when this revision petition had come up for hearing dasti notices were issued to the respondents but despite service respondents did not appear and that is why, on 04.10.2008 the petition was admitted and the operation of order of Appellate Court was stayed. Thereafter the petitioner got his site plan sanctioned and raised construction as per law which is almost complete. Thereafter, respondents filed an application for vacation of the said interim order on 06.07.2009. It is thus, RSA No.3017 of 2009 -2- argued that even if any equity existed in favour of the respondents, the same stood eroded due to efflux of time. In my opinion, the matter cannot be over-simplified in such a manner. No doubt the stay order was passed after the respondents failed to enter appearance before the Lower Appellate Court. Yet in view of the serious dispute regarding the entitlement, it cannot be said that any equity existing in favour of the respondents, can be effaced totally. In these circumstances, this revision petition and application for stay is dismissed. However, to balance the equities it is directed that the respondents/plaintiff in the suit shall conclude their entire evidence on their own responsibility within two hearings. The petitioner has undertaken to lead his entire evidence within three hearings. In the circumstances, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the final disposal of this suit. August 17, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE