HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 582/2007 Shabbir Ahmed …. Appellants/Defendants .. Versus Smt. Qamar Jahan & others … Respondents/Plaintiffs Sri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the appellants/defendants. Sri Rattan Lal, Advocate for the respondents. 25th September, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/defendants against the order dated 26.10.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar in O.S. Suit No. 130/2006 whereby the application for temporary injunction filed by the applicants/plaintiffs has been allowed and the orders have been passed that during the pendency of the suit the possession of the plaintiffs/respondents on the disputed property shall not be interfered with nor the plaintiffs/respondents be removed from the property. The defendant had filed the present appeal from order against the said judgment and order dated 26.10.2007. While admitting this appeal on 28.12.2007 status quo order was passed by this Court. Appeal is listed for final hearing today. On perusal of the impugned order dated 26.10.2007 this Court finds that while disposing of the application for temporary injunction the trial court has considered all the relevant factors necessary for disposing of such application. On the basis of the evidence and the pleadings before it, the trial court had come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are claiming right on the basis of a registered sale deed whereas the defendants claim right on the basis of agreement for sale which is also not registered. The Court below, therefore, has rightly decided that prima facie case is in favour of the 2 plaintiffs. While considering the balance of convenience the order passed by the trial court while disposing of the application for temporary injunction is only to the extent that the possession of the plaintiffs has been stayed and further directions have been given not to dispossess the plaintiffs from the property in dispute. From the records it appears that both the plaintiffs as well as the defendants are claiming that they are making constructions on the disputed property. This construction has further been stopped and it appears to be done in the interest of justice. This Court finds no anomaly in the order impugned. Appeal from Order is, therefore, dismissed. Trial court is directed to expedite the hearing of the suit. It is further directed that status quo ante as it existed on the property on the date impugned order was passed i.e. on 26.10.2007 shall be maintained by the parties. It is further directed that any observations made by this Court are only prima facie in nature and shall not affect the merit of the case which is pending before the trial court. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 25.9.2009 Avneet