Civil Revision No.3080 of 2004 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3080 of 2004 Date of decision: December 17, 2008. State of Haryana ...Petitioner(s) v. Khilanda Ram & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri R.D. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the petitioner. Shri Shailendra Jain, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos.3080, 3081, 3927 and 4813 of 2004 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. These revision petitions have been preferred by the State of Haryana and the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad against the order dated 20.4.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad whereby the order dated 26.3.2003 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad has been set aside and an application under Civil Revision No.3080 of 2004 -: 2 :- Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC moved by the respondent-plaintiff has been allowed subject to certain conditions. While admitting these revision petitions, operation of the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad was stayed. The said interim order is still operating. It is stated by Learned Counsel for the parties that the civil suits are still pending and the evidence of the plaintiff is being recorded. They are, however, in agreement that since the stay granted by this Court is operating from the last more than two and a half years, there is no necessity to go into the merits of these revision petitions and the same can be disposed of with a direction to the civil court to decide the suits on merits and till then the parties can be directed to maintain status quo. It, however, needs to be clarified that the observations made by the learned Additional District Judge in para 12 of the impugned order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case as it is yet to be finally determined as to whether or not the respondent-plaintiffs are entitled to be allotted the sites and if so, at what rate. That issue shall be independently decided by the civil court and/or the competent authority on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties. Disposed of in the above terms. December 17, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge