IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 401 of 2009 Date of decision: 29.09.2010 Bhagat Ram Petitioner. Versus Yashwant Singh and others Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. . For the petitioner: Mr.O.P.Sharma Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.S.Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. By means of this petition the petitioner Bhagat Ram, who is defendant No.2 before the learned trial Court has challenged the order passed by the learned District Judge, Solan in C.M.Appeal No.13-S/14 of 2008 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the learned trial Court on the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff Yashwant Singh and Smt. Bhagwanti are the grand son and daughter-in-law of defendant No.1 Changu Ram. Shyam Lal son of Changu Ram has expired. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes. 2 3. The case of the petitioner is that the suit land is ancestral land in the hand of the defendant No.1 and therefore, defendant No.1 Changu Ram had no right to alienate the same. The entire suit land measures 6513 sq. mtrs. Out of the suit land Changu Ram had sold 211 sq.mtrs. in favour of defendant No.2 vide registered sale deed dated 12.1.2007. The claim of the plaintiff is that by way of family arrangement they are in possession of the said land. The learned trial Court passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo qua the nature and possession of the suit land measuring 211 sq.mtrs. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Hence, the present petition. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the land in question is not ancestral land but self acquired land of Changu Ram since he has been conferred proprietary rights under the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act in respect of this land. Even if the case of the petitioner is accepted that the land has been sold to the petitioner no construction on the same can be allowed till the plaintiffs who are allegedly in possession of the suit land are dispossessed in accordance with law. Both the Courts below have not given any finding as to whether it is defendant No.2 or the plaintiffs who are in possession of Khasra No. 212 and 213. Therefore, there is nothing on record to prove 3 the fact that this land is in possession of either of the parties. As such order of status quo is the only proper order which could have been passed. Therefore, the order under appeal cannot be said to be wrong and the petition is rejected. No order as to costs. 5. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 2nd November, 2010. It is made clear that the learned trial Court shall attempt to decide the suit as early as possible and in any event not later than 31st October, 2011. 29th September, 2010 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™