IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 5414 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 1st December, 2009. Hira Singh & Anr. Petitioners through Mr. Sherry K.Singla, Advocate Versus Baldev Singh Respondent through Mr. Bikramjit Arora, Advocate. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 29.08.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge [Fast Track Court] Adhoc, Tarn Taran, whereby, on an appeal preferred by the respondent – plaintiff against the order dated 05.04.2006 passed by the Civil Judge [Junior Division], Tarn Taran, in a matter arising out of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner – defendant has been restrained from interfering in the alleged possession of the respondent – plaintiff over the suit land. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length. The controversy pertains to a piece of land measuring 2 kanals situated at village Jawande Khurd, Tehsil Tarn Taran, which was earlier owned by Smt. Santo. While the respondent – plaintiff claims himself to be a Gair Marushi tenant over the land, the petitioner relies upon a registered sale deed dated 19.8.2005 to assert as its owner in possession. There is a long chain of disputed facts including the identity of the person, who, as per the entries in the revenue record, was in cultivating possession of the suit land during the life time and/or after the death of Smt. Santo. In a situation like this, where the trial Court did not find prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, the appellate Court even while forming a contrary opinion, ought to have directed the parties to maintain status-quo especially when it is too difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain, on the basis of the scant material on record, as to who is in actual physical possession of the suit land. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed in part, the impugned order dated 29.8.2009 is modified and the parties are directed to maintain status-quo as it exists today at the spot, till the decision of the suit. Having regard to the rival claims and the nature of the suit, the Civil Court is directed to make an endeavour to decide the same as early as possible and preferably within six months. Disposed of. Dasti. December 01, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE