IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 655 of 2004 Date of decision : 8.9.09 Sahi Ram ….. Petitioner Versus Joginder Singh and Others ….. Respondents Present: None. **** S.S. SARON, J. The revision petition has been filed by the defendant/petitioner against the order dated 9.12.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehabad whereby the appeal of the defendant/petitioner against the judgment and order dated 29.8.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Fatehabad has been dismissed. The plaintiff/respondent Joginder Singh purchased 8 kanals of land in the revenue estate of village Ayalki Tehsil and District Fatehabad vide registered sale deed dated 9.5.2002. Mutation No.360 was sanctioned in his favour on 18.9.2002. The plaintiff/respondent Joginder Singh after purchasing the property had sown his crop. The entries in the khasra girdwari, however, was in the name of one Mani Ram son of Mam Raj as ‘gair marusi’. The defendants No.1 to 4 are the sons and legal heirs of the said Mani Ram. The defendants No.5, 6 and 7 are the brothers of Mani Ram son of Mam Raj. According to the plaintiff/respondent, the legal heirs of Mani Ram had admitted CR No. 655 of 2004 2 the plaintiffs’ possession in an agreement dated 4.7.2003. Besides, one of the defendants namely Maru Ram had also deposed an affidavit dated 6.1.2003 in this regard. Defendants No.1 to 4 taking advantage of the revenue record in favour of Mani Ram are out to dispossess the plaintiff/respondent from the suit land and therefore, the suit was filed. Along with the suit, an application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC” – for short) was also filed. The stand of the defendants No.1 to 4 was that they were in possession of the suit property as ‘gair marusi’ tenants and previously their father Mani Ram was in possession. After his death, their mother and defendants No.1 to 4 had succeeded to the tenancy rights of Mani Ram and they were in cultivating possession of the same. The agreement set up by the plaintiff/respondent Joginder Singh, it is stated, was a result of fraud, besides, it is submitted that in case one of the defendants deposed an affidavit, the same is binding on him and not the other defendants. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehabad after considering the contentions of the respective parties held that the plea of the defendants did not appear to be correct because agreement dated 4.7.2003 was on the file and it had been signed by defendants Pat Ram, Ram Sarup, Jagat Ram and the three sons of Sahi Ram. It was held that the plea that the signatures had been obtained by fraud could not be looked into at the said stage. Maru Ram defendant had also deposed and given his affidavit admitting the plaintiff’s claim. In the aforesaid circumstances, the defendants were restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/respondent over the suit property. However, they could enjoy the passage as provided for in the agreement. Accordingly, the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent Joginder Singh under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was CR No. 655 of 2004 3 allowed. The defendants Sahi Ram and Ram Sarup aggrieved against the order dated 29.8.2003 filed an appeal which has been dismissed vide order dated 9.12.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehabad. Reliance was placed on the agreement dated 4.7.2003 and the affidavit dated 6.1.2003. The defendant Sahi Ram son of Mani Ram aggrieved against the order dated 9.12.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehabad has filed the present revision petition which was admitted on 5.2.2004. In the meantime, it was directed that the parties to the appeal shall maintain status quo with regard to possession. However, it was clarified that pendency of the present revision petition would not preclude the learned trial Court from proceeding with the suit which shall be decided as expeditiously as possible. The case has been listed today. As per office report, service is complete. However, no one is present. It is not clear as to what is the stage of the case before the learned trial Court. In the circumstances, it would be just and expedient that the present revision petition is disposed of with the order to maintain status quo and in case the suit has been decided, the present revision petition be treated to have been rendered infructuous. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of. In case the suit between the parties is still pending, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the suit property till it is disposed of by the learned trial Court and in case the suit has been disposed of, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed as having become infructuous. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE September 8, 2009 amit CR No. 655 of 2004 4