IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 313 of 2006 Date of decision: 22.5.2008 Joginder Pal Petitioner. Versus Atma Ram and another Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Inderjeet Narwal, vice Shri M.S.Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent No.1. Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. This petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 19/02 RBT 4/04/02 decided on 8.9.2006, whereby he allowed the appeal of the respondents (here-in-after referred to as the defendants) and dismissed the application for grant of interim relief filed by the petitioner (here-in-after referred to as the plaintiff). Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants in respect of the suit land. The basis of the suit was that the suit land was owned and possessed by the plaintiff and his real 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. brothers and defendants are utter strangers having no right, title or interest but are interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. It was further averred that during consolidation proceedings the suit land was allotted to the plaintiff. Alongwith the suit an application for interim relief was also filed. The defendants contested the suit and claimed that they are owners in exclusive Hissedari possession of the suit land. According to defendants, this land is jointly owned by the parties but it is the defendants who are in possession of the same. This possession is recorded in all the revenue records prior to the consolidation proceedings. The learned trial Court directed the parties to maintain status qua. Defendants went up in appeal and vide impugned order the learned lower appellate Court held that no prima facie case has been made out in favour of the plaintiff. He accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed the application for grant of interim relief. Hence the present petition. I have heard Mr. Inderjeet Narwal learned vice counsel for the plaintiff and Mr. N.K.Thakur, learned counsel for the defendants. From the perusal of the orders of both the Courts below and the material placed on record, it is apparent that prior to consolidation proceedings, it was the defendants who were recorded in possession of the suit land. No doubt, the land was jointly owned by the parties but in the column of possession, defendants were recorded in Hissedari possession of the suit land. During consolidation proceedings this land was allotted to the plaintiff. It would be pertinent to mention that the plaintiff also filed an application that pursuant to the orders of the consolidation the possession of the land may be delivered to him. No material has been placed on record to show that on the basis of this application possession of the land was actually delivered to the plaintiff. It would also not be out of place to mention that the order of the Consolidation Officer whereby the land was allotted to the plaintiff was challenged and the said order was set-aside in appeal and the matter remanded to the Consolidation Officer. Thereafter, I have been informed at the Bar, which fact is not disputed, that the Consolidation Officer has decided the matter against the petitioner and the appeal has been filed by the plaintiff before the Settlement Officer. Therefore, as on date, there is no order of the Consolidation Officer in favour of the petitioner. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am prima facie of the opinion that it is the defendants who are in possession of the suit land. Even though the defendants have been held to be in possession the rights, if any, of the plaintiff must also be protected so that in case the matter is decided in his favour he can enjoy the fruits of the decree. The only order which can be passed is that the defendants are restrained from alienating or in any manner encumbering the suit property. Consequently, the petition is allowed to the limited extent and the defendants are restrained from alienating or in any manner encumbering the suit land. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 22nd May, 2008 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™