C. R. No. 6852 OF 2006. ****** Daulat Ram vs Ballu & another Present : Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for respondent No.1. ******* Challenge in this revision petition is to an order, dated 22.2.2006, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc)-cum- Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.III, Faridabad, whereby an appeal, filed by respondent No.1, was accepted and the order, dated 23.2.2004, passed by the learned trial Court, dismissing an application for interim injunction, was set aside. Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 has encroached upon a path, carved out by the Consolidation Officer, pursuant to exercise of powers, under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to use the path to approach his property. The learned appellate Court failed to take into consideration the aforementioned fact and by only relying upon the fact that respondent No.1 claims to have constructed a house, which includes the 1 marla of land in dispute, directed the parties to maintain status quo. Counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, submits that the order, passed by the Consolidation Authority, does not affect the respondents' rights. Respondent No.1 purchased the suit land prior to the passing of the aforementioned order. As respondent No.1 was not C.R.No.6852 of 2006 : 2 : impleaded as a party to the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, the said order does not bind or in any manner affect his rights. Consequently, the learned appellate Court rightly directed the parties to maintain status quo. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is not denied that respondent No.1 has constructed a double storey building. It cannot be stated with any degree of certainty as to whether the 1 marla of land, in dispute, falls within respondent No.1's building or not. The said controversy would obviously be resolved by the learned trial Court on the basis of evidence to be adduced by the parties. As respondent No.1 has raised a house, allegedly including the 1 marla of land in dispute, the impugned order does not call for interference. However, the learned trial Court shall, while considering the matter on merits, apart from taking into consideration the question of jurisdiction vis.a.vis the orders, passed by the Consolidation Officer, proceed to decide the suit, within a period of six months from the next date of hearing, after affording three effective opportunities to each party to lead and conclude their evidence. The revision petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms. ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) February 05, 2008. JUDGE `kk'