C.R. No.1916 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.1916 of 2007 Date of Decision: 10.3.2008 Pritam Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Sukhdev Singh and others ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Ms.Jaspal Kaur Gurna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Binderjit Singh, Advocate for the respondents. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner impugns an order dated 13.3.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, reversing an order dated 22.12.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bathinda, directing parties to maintain status quo. By referring to an entry in the jamabandi for the year 1999- 2000, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner is in possession of the suit land and, therefore, should only be dispossessed, in accordance with law. It is further asserted that the respondents have no right, whether possessory or otherwise to the property in dispute and even otherwise, the dispute with respect to correction of the consolidation record is pending before the Director, Consolidation at Jalandhar. It is prayed that in view of the aforementioned facts, the order dated 16.4.2007 directing parties to maintain status-quo be ordered to continue. Counsel for the respondents, however, states that the C.R. No.1916 of 2007 2 respondents are in actual physical possession of the property in dispute. The petitioner is misusing a stray entry in the revenue record, so as to perpetuate a false plea of possession. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 reflects the petitioner in possession of 8 Kanals 10 Marlas. The correctness of the revenue record, would be adjudicated by the trial Court. As a dispute with respect to the correction of the revenue record prepared during consolidation proceedings is pending before the Director, Consolidation at Jalandhar, it would be appropriate to direct the parties to maintain status-quo during the pendency of the suit. The Appellate Court erred in reversing the order passed by the learned trial Court as the vacation of the order of status-quo would lead to multiple suits and proceedings. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed, the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda dated 13.3.2007 is set aside and parties are directed to maintain status quo during the pendency of the suit. The revision petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms. 10.3.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE