Civil Revision No. 288 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 288 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.12.2010. Gurnam Singh ....Petitioner Versus Dalip Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present:- Mr. S.S. Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. JPS Lamba, Advocate for the respondents. RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J C.M. Nos. 16706-07-CII of 2010 The Civil Miscellaneous Applications are allowed, subject to just exceptions. C.R. No. 288 of 2010 This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 1.12.2009 passed by the Lower Appellate Court, whereby, while accepting the appeal filed by the defendants/respondents, status-quo order granted to the plaintiff/petitioner was set aside. The petitioner filed a suit for injunction to restrain the defendants from ploughing the passage shown by letter ABCD in the site plan attached with the plaint passing through Khasra Nos. 80//2(6-13), 9(8-0), 12(8-0), 19(8-0), 22 (8-0), Khewat Khatoni No. 288/405 situated at village Faraur, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib as per jamabandi for the years 2006-07. According to the petitioner, he is a co-sharer of the land shown in green colour in the site plan and there passage shown as ABCD with red colour in the aforesaid site plan. The defendants, who have no concern or connection with the said passage are threatening to cultivate the land of the passage and create hindrance in the use and enjoyment of the same. Civil Revision No. 288 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Along with the suit, the petitioner-plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking ad-interim injunction to restrain the defendants-respondents for restraining them from ploughing the passage in dispute or creating any hindrance in its use and enjoyment, during the pendency of the suit. The respondents contested the claim of the plaintiff/petitioner with the plea that he was not owner in possession of the suit land and the defendants were exclusive owner and in possession of the suit land. The site plan filed by the petitioner was wrong and the partition proceedings before Tehsildar Khamanon were also filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, including the suit land shown as joint land. However, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court allowed the application of the plaintiff-petitioner and directed the parties to maintain status-quo. However, on appeal, the lower Appellate Court had set aside the aforesaid order of the trial Court. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order. On July 13, 2010, a statement was made before this Court that there is no other passage to the land of the petitioner and on the basis of the aforesaid averments, notice of motion was issued and status-quo with regard to passage in dispute was directed to be maintained. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has submitted before this Court that the averments made by the petitioner is not correct as the land of the petitioner is having a rasta as given by the revenue authorities and the suit land belongs to the respondents to which the petitioner has no right. However, keeping in view the fact that the trial has already commenced and the suit is at the stage of plaintiff's evidence, the status-quo order as granted by this Court vide order dated July 13, 2010 is ordered to be continued till the decision of the suit, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall complete his evidence within three months from today. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not complete and close his evidence within Civil Revision No. 288 of 2010 (O&M) 3 three months from today, the order dated July 13, 2010 passed by this Court shall be deemed to be vacated without any further reference to this Court and this revision petition shall be deemed to be dismissed. Disposed of. Copy dasti on usual charges. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) 10.12.2010. JUDGE Reema