IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 5735 of 2005. Date of Decision: 23rd April, 2009. Surinder Kumar & Anr. ....Petitioners through None Versus Kewal Krishan & Ors. ...Respondents through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed against the orders dated 9.11.2004 and 30.8.2005 passed by the courts below whereby application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been allowed and ad-interim injunction has been issued against the petitioner and the order has been affirmed in appeal. Vide the injunction order, the parties were directed to maintain status-quo regarding alienation/construction over the suit property till the disposal of the suit. While admitting this revision petition, this Court vide order dated 4.7.2006 stayed operation of the impugned order. No one appears on behalf of the parties, though the matter has been taken up for hearing repeatedly. It appears that both the parties have re-conciled with the interim order passed by this Court or the civil suit itself might have been decided by now. Be that as it may, since operation of the impugned order was stayed and there was no ad-interim order restraining the respondents from alienating and/or raising construction over the subject property, I deem it appropriate not to go into the merits of the revision petition at this stage which may unnecessarily cause prejudice to either of the parties. The Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction that alienation and/or construction raised by the petitioners shall be subject to the final outcome of the civil suit. Disposed of. April 23, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE