IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No:407 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.11.2010 Sant Ram .....Petitioner. Versus Chanano Devi and Ors. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner: Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the respondents: None Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). This petition is directed against the order dated 30.9.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan whereby the order of the learned Trial Court directing the parties to maintain status quo has been set aside. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the father of the plaintiff died sometime in the year 1955. The plaintiff claimed that he was only three years old at that time and his mother started living with some other person. It is alleged that the entries showing defendants No.2 to 5 to be the children of Sobha Ram, father of the plaintiff are wrong and incorrect. The Whether the reports of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 plaintiff further averred that upto the year 2002, he was serving outside District Sirmaur. When he came back, he came to know that the partition proceedings in respect of the land were pending but he had not been made a party to these proceedings. He thereafter, moved an application before the revenue authorities which culminated in the order dated 5.5.2009 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) in which the Financial Commissioner held that the petitioner was not an owner or joint owner or tenant of the land under partition and, therefore, his plea could not be entertained. 3. The petitioner in this suit has claimed that he being a son of Sobha Ram is entitled to a share in the land. Even in the suit, it is alleged that when the petitioner was out of District Sirmaur, his land was being cultivated by defendants No.2 to 5 and Sh.Balbir Singh. There is no averment as to when this land was taken back from these persons. Therefore, I am prima facie of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to show that he is in possession of the land. 4. The question whether the plaintiff has a share in the land or not has already been decided against him in revenue proceedings. The plaintiff will now have to establish his right in the Civil Suit. The plaintiff challenges the long 3 standing revenue entries and at this stage, without recording of evidence, one cannot say what is the merit in the case of the plaintiff. However, the fact remains that the plaintiff is not in possession of the land and the defendants who are as many as 44 in number have moved the revenue authorities and obtained the order of partition. At this stage, further delay in the partition proceedings would cause irreparable harm and injury to the defendants. Therefore, the learned Lower Appellate Court was fully justified in rejecting the application. It is however, made clear that any observation made herein has been made only for the purpose of deciding the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, CPC and shall have no effect on the merits of the main case. It is also made clear that the implementation of the partition order by handing over possession shall be expressly subject to the outcome of the present Civil Suit. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. November 15, 2010 (Deepak Gupta), J. (m) 4