IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1948 of 2007 Date of decision: March 5, 2008. Raja Ram ...Petitioner(s) v. Subhash Chander ...Respondent(s) 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. Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Sandeepa Mehta, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 15.1.2007 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa whereby in purported exercise of his powers under Section 151 CPC, the petitioner – plaintiff has been restrained from “disturbing the possession of the defendant over the land as shown in the decree dated 15.12.2001, Ex.P-1” passed by the court of Shri S.K. Khanduja, the then learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, as well as against the order dated 16.3.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa whereby the petitioner's appeal against the above stated order of the learned trial court has been dismissed being not maintainable. The petitioner – plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he continues to be owner in possession of the subject land and that the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2001 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa in civil suit No.452/2001 titled as “Subhash Chander v. Raja Ram” is null and void being an outcome of fraud and misrepresentation of facts and does not affect the rights of the petitioner – plaintiff. Along with the said civil suit, the petitioner – plaintiff also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for the grant of ad-interim injunction. His application, however, was dismissed by the trial court and the appeal preferred by him also met with the same fate. Thereafter, the respondent – defendant moved an application under section 151 CPC that he being in actual possession of the subject land, the petitioner – plaintiff be restrained from disturbing his possession over the same. The aforesaid application has been allowed by the learned trial court vide the impugned order and the petitioner's appeal against the same has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge after holding that since the said order was not passed under order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, no appeal was maintainable. Aggrieved, the petitioner – plaintiff has filed this revision petition. I have heard Learned Counsel for the respondent – defendant and perused the impugned orders. It is apparent that the alleged collusive decree passed in Civil Suit No.452 of 2001 has been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds, including fraud and misrepresentation of facts. That aspect is yet to be gone into by the civil court. It may be true that the petitioner – plaintiff failed to prove his possession before the civil court in his application seeking ad-interim injunction. That circumstance, however, need not to have been capitalized by the learned civil court in making a categoric observation that the respondent – defendant is in possession of the suit land or that the petitioner – plaintiff is disturbing the same. The parties are real brothers and there being serious allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, the learned civil court ought to have proceeded in the matter cautiously by directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the possession. The Revision Petition is accordingly partly allowed. It is directed that the observations made by this Court or by the trial court in both sets of orders shall have no bearing on the merits of the case, but till the decision of the suit, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to possession as well as alienation of the subject land. March 05, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge