IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 7092 of 2008 [O&M] Date of Decision: 6th July, 2009. Satbir Singh Petitioner through Mr. Vinod S.Bhardwaj Advocate Versus Kanahiya Respondent through Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed against the orders dated 5.3.2007 and 11.11.2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge [Senior Division], Kosli and learned District Judge, Rewari whereby the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC has been allowed and the petitioner has been restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession of the respondent – plaintiff and the said order has been further affirmed by the Appellate Court. The controversy pertains to a piece of land measuring 2 Kanals 13 Marlas, comprised in Killa No.4/2 situated within the revenue estate of village Ahmadpur Partal, Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari. While the respondent-plaintiff claims 'occupancy rights' qua the same, the petitioner asserts himself to be owner in possession on the strength of the registered sale deed dated 6.12.1978. The Courts below have injucted the petitioner from interfering in the alleged possession of the respondent – plaintiff on the basis of the revenue record, namely, Khasra Girdawari. The petitioner's case is that he had applied before the Assistant Collector for correction of the revenue record which has since been corrected after notice to the respondent – plaintiff and the petitioner's possession over the suit land has been duly reflected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the entries in the revenue record, on the strength of which ad-interim order was granted by the courts below, have been changed and both the parties are asserting their possession over the suit land, it appears that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the parties are directed to maintain status-quo as it exists today. The revision petition is accordingly allowed in part and the impugned orders are modified to the extent that both the parties shall maintain status-quo as it exists today. Learned Civil Court shall expedite the trial of the suit. Disposed of. Dasti. July 06, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE