Civil Revision. No. 6072 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision. No. 6072 of 2007 Date of decision:24th July, 2009 Satnam Singh and others …..Petitioners Versus Kuldip Singh and others ......Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate for the petitioners. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The petitioners challenges an order dated 27.09.2007, passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, accepting the appeal filed by the respondents, by setting aside the order dated 29.03.2007, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar and directing the parties to maintain staus quo. The respondents nos. 1 to 5, filed a suit for declaration, claiming to be owners in possession of the suit land, and also for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering in their possession. Upon notice on the application for ad interim injunction, the petitioners filed a written statement denying the ownership or the possession of the respondents. The learned trial court vide order dated 29.03.2007, dismissed the application by holding that there was 1 Civil Revision. No. 6072 of 2007 nothing on the record to hold that the respondents were owners or in possession. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the respondents filed an appeal. The Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide order dated 27.09.2007, allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 29.03.2007, passed by the trial court and held that the sale deed dated 5.08.1957 clearly establishes the ownership of the respondents and the mere fact that the revenue authorities have failed to enter a mutation in respect thereof, would not disentitle the respondents to pray for protection of their possession. Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the order passed by the Additional District Judge, is erroneous in fact and in law. The sale deed dated 5.08.1957 was never produced before the revenue authorities and having not been acted upon for 50 years, should not have been considered, as sufficient evidence of the respondents, prima facie ownership and possession. The first appellate court erred in accepting the appeal and directing the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit property. Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. I find no error in the discharge of discretion by the appellate court in directing the parties to maintain status quo. The sale deed dated 5.08.1957, prima facie, establishes the ownership of the respondents. The absence of entries in the 2 Civil Revision. No. 6072 of 2007 revenue record would not disentitle the respondents to interim relief as their claim is based upon a sale deed. The order directing the parties to maintain status quo does not affect the rights of the petitioners and even otherwise, would not cause any loss, harm or damage to them but if not granted would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and further complications for the parties. Dismissed. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 24th July, 2009 SKaushik 3