IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.355 of 2006. Date of decision: 17.09.2008. Shiv Giri Baba & Others …Petitioners Versus Smt.Khimi Devi …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioners: Mr.Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This is the plaintiffs’ petition against the order passed by the learned Fast Track Court at Mandi reversing the order passed by the learned trial Court in an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred by the plaintiffs, petitioners herein, praying for interim directions. The learned trial Court on a conspectus of the entire material on the record, directed that the parties shall maintain status quo, as the status of the parties with respect to the suit properties has not been established with clarity and contentious points having been raised for consideration which require 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 determination on the basis of evidence which may be brought on the record. The learned District Judge entered into a detailed discussion, modified the order holding that the application of the plaintiffs is allowed only to the extent that the defendant is restrained from raising construction over part of the suit land comprised in Khasra No.585 till the final disposal of the suit. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order prejudices the rights of the plaintiffs herein inasmuch as in case the defendant seeks to raise construction on the suit land and other portion of the suit property which will seriously prejudice the rights of the plaintiff. It is trite to observe that any act committed by the respondent herein including improvements/construction raised in the property, will be subject to the final decision of the litigation on the principle of lis pendens. The apprehension of the plaintiffs that such acts will create equity in favour of the defendant is ill founded. It is well settled that no litigant can claim equity on the basis of any construction/improvement made on the land during the pendency of the case. This petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. September 17, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge. 3