IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2493 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: July 27, 2009. Baptist Missionary Society Corporation & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) v. R.P. Singh & 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 Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri Harminderjit Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.3.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad whereby the order dated 8.8.2006 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal granting ad-interim injunction to the petitioners, has been set aside and their application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC has been dismissed. The controversy pertains to the property which at one point of time was admittedly owned by the petitioner-Church. Thereafter, a sale deed is purported to have been executed in favour of respondents No.3 to 5 on the basis of which they are now claiming title. When this revision petition came up for preliminary hearing before this Court on 29.4.2008, the following order was passed:- “Notice of motion for 7.7.2008. Mr. S.C. Kapoor, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harminderjeet Singh, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.3 to 5. I have heard counsel for the parties on the question of interim relief. A perusal of the documents, Annexures P-9 to P-18 i.e. Jamabandis for the relevant years, prima facie appears to suggest that the petitioners were owners in possession of the property in dispute. It appears that in a jamabandi for the year 1974-75, a different entry came to be recorded with respect to the ownership, on the basis whereof, the property was sold to respondents No.3 to 5. An FIR has also been lodged against respondents No.1 and 2, who made a statement that they did not sell the property in dispute to respondents No.3 to 5. Parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to possession, alienation or change in the nature of the property in dispute, till further orders.” The facts that the petitioners have been shown as owners in possession of the subject property for years together in the revenue record or that an FIR has been registered and the matter with regard to the same is pending investigation, are not in dispute. In these circumstances, it would be most appropriate to direct the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession and also to restrain them from alienating or changing the nature of the property. Ordered accordingly. The trial court is directed to expedite the disposal of the suit. Dasti. July 27, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge