Civil Revision No.257 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.257 of 2009 Date of Decision:28.01.2009 M/s D.S.R.Developers Pvt.Ltd. & ors. ....petitioners Versus Murtee Shree Ram Chander Ji Maharaj .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Harsh Bunger,Advocate for the petitioners **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are the owners of the land measuring 6 kanals 12 marlas comprised in khasra No.476 situated in Patti Mehar, Ambala City, Tehsil and District Ambala and the lease deed dated 19.09.2005 registered vide Pralekh No.6830 has been executed illegally and without having any right by respondent No.3, in favour of the petitioners and also that gift deed bearing Pralekh No.4057 dated 14.12.2007 in respect of the part property of the aforesaid suit property has been wrongly and illegally executed by petitioners in favour of respondent No.4 and 5 and is not binding upon their rights and the same are liable to be set aside. Along with this suit the plaintiffs also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for interim stay. The aforesaid application filed by respondent No.1 and 2 was dismissed vide order dated 13.09.2008 of Ms.Sunita Grover, ACJ(Senior Division), Ambala City. Feeling aggrieved from the same, plaintiffs filed an appeal which was allowed vide order dated 19.12.2008 passed by Additional Civil Revision No.257 of 2009 2 District Judge, Ambala in following terms: In view of the discussions made above and the connected circumstances that have been brought on record, I am of the opinion that plaintiffs/appellants have been able to prove existence of prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour and would suffer irreparable loss in case the construction is allowed to be raised by Respondents No. 1 to 3. I am also of the opinion that in case Respondents No. 1 to 3 are allowed to raise construction, the same would negate the effect of order passed by the High Court vide which the appellants and respondent No. 4 (lessor of, respondents No. 1 to 3) were ordered to maintain status quo as regard the possession and alienation of the suit land. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid order, defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed the present revision petition challenging the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala. Admittedly, the petitioners are claiming their title in the suit land comprised in khasra No.476(6-12) on the basis of a lease deed dated 19.09.2005 executed in their favour by respondent No.3. This is also not disputed that the title of the aforesaid respondent No.3 over the said land including other lands is the subject matter of RSA No.1196 of 2007 in which vide order dated 06.08.2007 parties have been directed to maintain status quo regarding possession as well as alienation. It is also not in dispute that in RSA No.1196 of 2007 changing of the entries in the revenue record on the basis of the impugned judgment and decree was also stayed vide order dated 24.04.2007. Faced with the aforesaid order dated 06.08.2007 passed in RSA No.1196 of 2007 learned counsel for the petitioners wants to withdraw the present petition. Civil Revision No.257 of 2009 3 The revision petition is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn with the observations that during the pendency of the suit the petitioners shall not change the nature of the property in dispute and will also maintain status quo with regard to the possession as well as alienation. Dismissed as withdrawn. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 28.01.2009 neenu