IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO. No. 392/2009. Date of Decision :January 5,2010. Paras Ram …Petitioner. Versus Mani Ram ….Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. A.K.Vashishta, Advocate. For the respondents .: Mr. S.D.Gill, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner herein has assailed the impugned order dated 19th February, 2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, H.P. in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 10 of 2008 titled as Paras Ram Vs. Mani Ram. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff and hereinafter are referred to as such. The defendant filed Civil Suit No. 155 of 2007, against the plaintiff in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No. II, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. On the defendant’s application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 2 C.P.C., in terms of order dated 12th February, 2008 the trial court passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo qua the nature, possession and construction over the suit land till the final disposal of the main case. It is not in dispute that this order is in operation. Subsequently, plaintiff also filed Civil Suit No.3 of 2008 which also got listed before the same court. In the plaintiff’s application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. filed in the said suit, the trial Court directed the defendant (petitioner herein) not to raise any kind of construction or change the nature of the suit land till final disposal. Aggrieved of the same, the defendant filed an appeal before the District Judge which stands dismissed in terms of the impugned order. The challenge to the order is mainly on the ground that the trial court has passed contradictory orders in two separate proceedings. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the view that no ground for interference is made out. Undisputedly the subject matter of the suit is same. The subsequent suit was filed by the plaintiff only after the proceedings for partitioning the property had concluded and the revenue entries recording the plaintiff to be exclusive owner in possession of the suit premises were prepared by the appropriate authorities. Subsequent change in the circumstances had necessitated passing of the order in the plaintiff’s suit. In my considered view, the lower 3 Appellate Court has considered this aspect of the matter correctly. No doubt by way of an appeal, the defendant has assailed the order passed by the revenue authorities before the Financial Commissioner, but, however, no stay has been granted. Hence the order passed by the authorities is in operation. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the present petition. The impugned order is neither illegal nor perverse. The petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. January 5, 2010(R)