CRP 3/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. S.S. Dey, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Thank hiew, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The respondents in Misc. Civil Appeal No.4/2009 pending before the learn ed Addl. District Council Court, Shillong has filed the present petition challen ging the later part of the order dated 21.12.2009 whereby and whereunder the pre sent petitioner is temporarily directed not to enter into the suit land, while g ranting the petitioner liberty to approach the said court for modification of th e said order, if so advice. Since the Civil Court is in winter holiday, the pres ent application has been filed by the present petitioner challenging the said or der in this court in revision petition. Mr. Dey, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the l earned Addl. District Council Court after granting an adjournment fixing 02.02.2 010 for filing the written argument by the petitioner, ought not to have passed any order restraining the petitioner from entering into the suit land, in the ab sence of the petitioner and without hearing him, which is evident from the later part of the order dated 21.12.2009 passed by the learned Court below, which was passed on the basis of the application filed by the present respondents even wi thout furnishing a copy of the same to the petitioner. Mr. Dey further submits t hat though the petitioner had no grievance against the order of status quo passe d by the learned appellate court in the said appeal, he being in possession of t he suit land, the later part of the order dated 21.12.2009 has effected his righ t as he has been restrained from entering into the suit land. Mr. Thankhiew, the learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the respondents are in possession of the suit land and in fa ct, the present petitioner in another proceeding being Misc. Case No.18/2003 ari sing out of T.S. 24/2003 was restrained by the learned Subordinate District Coun cil Court vide order dated 21.11.2003 from interfering with the possession of th e petitioner therein (respondents are claiming their right under the said petiti oner) and against which though the present petitioner had approached this court in Civil Revision Petition No.3/2008, the same had been dismissed and such order of injunction is still continuing, the suit being pending for disposal till dat e. Mr. Thankhew further submits that it is, therefore, evident that the petition er was/is not in possession of the suit land and it is the respondents who are p ossessing the same. According Mr. Thankhiew, since after passing of the order of status quo, the present petitioner forcibly wanted to occupy the suit land, the y have filed an application on 21.12.2009 seeking an order of restraint, which w as allowed by the learned court below keeping in view the entire facts and circu mstances of the case, by allowing the present petitioner to move the said court for modification/alteration of the order passed as ex-parte. Mr. Dey however in reply to the submission made by Mr. Thankhiew has sub mitted that the land involved in T.S. No.24/2003 is different from the land invo lved in the present suit which gives rise to the aforesaid appeal and hence the order of injunction passed in Misc. Case No.18/2003 has no bearing in the presen t case. It has further been submitted that the parties in the said suit and the present suit are different. Be that as it may, since the parties are at dispute relating to the poss ession of the suit land and the first appellate court vide order dated 29.10.200 9 passed an order of status quo by staying the order of injunction passed by the learned Court below, which is the subject matter in Misc. Civil Appeal No.4/200 9, I dispose of the present revision petition with direction to the learned lowe r appellate court to take up the application dated 21.12.2009 filed by the prese nt respondents for consideration and disposal on 02.02.2010. On the said date th e present petitioner shall also file the written argument in Misc. Civil Appeal No.4/2009. The learned court below shall make an endeavour to dispose of the app eal within a period of 3(three) weeks from 02.02.2010. Till the reopening of the holidays in Shillong i.e. on 02.02.2010, both the parties are, however, restrai ned from entering into the suit land. The necessary order relating to grant or r efusal of the prayer for injunction on the basis of the application dated 21.12. 2009 filed by the present respondents shall be passed by the learned court below on 02.02.2010. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No cost.