Civil Revision No.4665 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4665 of 2002 Date of Order: 22.10.2009 Mohan Lal ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present:- Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for respondents no.3 to 6. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioner challenges orders dated 08.06.2002 and 16.08.2002, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal and the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, dismissing his application for ad- interim injunction and his appeal. The petitioner, filed a suit for declaration that the sanad taksim prepared by the Assistant Collector-IInd Grade, Palwal, is contrary to the mode of partition. The petitioner also prayed for grant of an ad-interim injunction to protect his possession. The respondents, opposed the grant of an ad-interim injunction on the ground that as the sanad taksim has attained finality the suit is not maintainable. The trial court as also the first appellate court have declined the prayer for injunction on the ground that in view of the sanction of a sanad taksim the suit is not maintainable. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. Civil Revision No.4665 of 2002 2 The question whether the suit is maintainable or whether a suit can be filed to challenge a sanad taksim, is a matter to be decided during the adjudication of the suit. The courts below have not rejected the plaint on the ground that it is not maintainable. The petitioner's prayer for grant of an injunction to protect his possession should have, therefore, been considered favourably as admittedly, he is in possession. The grant of an injunction would prevent unnecessary complications, that would arise from alteration of possessions. It would also be necessary to mention here that while admitting the revision petition, parties were directed to maintain status quo. As a consequence, the revision petition is allowed, the order passed by the courts below are set aside and it is directed that during the pendency of the suit, parties shall maintain status quo with respect to khasra Nos.14/1, 17/2, 23/2 and 24/1 contained in rectangle No.46 and khasra Nos.3/3/1 and 4/1 contained in rectangle No.56. October 22, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE