SBCMA No.25/2008 Balvindera Singh Vs. Surendra Singh & Ors. 1 SBCMA No.25/2008 Balvindera Singh Vs. Surendra Singh & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 15.12.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Hemant Jain,for the appellant. Mr. Trilok Joshi, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant's grievance against the impugned order dated 30th Nov., 2007 is that the order to maintain the status-quo may be misunderstood by the Irrigation Authorities. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the respondent-plaintiff in his injunction application had grievance that the property in question may be further alienated and it was pleaded that in case the property will be further alienated, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury. It is pointed out that in para no.5 of the injunction application the plaintiff himself stated that on the basis of SBCMA No.25/2008 Balvindera Singh Vs. Surendra Singh & Ors. 2 the will dated 27th March, 1998 the defendant no.1 got his name entered in revenue record by way of mutation in the Jamabandi. However, that was done without notice to the other party, but in view of the order of the trial court to maintain the status-quo according to learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant may have difficulty in getting the irrigation slip. Learned counsel for respondent Ravindra Singh stated that as per the irrigation rules the person in possession or the Khatedar – tenant recorded in the revenue record can get the irrigation facility and there is no question of mis- interpreting the impugned order since the order is to maintain the status-quo. The order of injunction is required to be read in the context in which prayer has been sought and since the plaintiff's grievance was against only the alienation of the property, therefore, it is to be read in context and, therefore, the order means that the appellant shall not further alienate the property. In view of the above, I do not find that appellant can SBCMA No.25/2008 Balvindera Singh Vs. Surendra Singh & Ors. 3 have any difficulty in getting any irrigation facility as per the rules of the Irrigation Department. In view of the above, the appeal of the appellant is disposed of with above observation. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-