IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 5529 of 2005. Date of Decision: 22nd April, 2009. Satnam Singh Petitioner through Mr. Gurmit Singh, Advocate Versus Dr. Triloki Nath Chugh etc. Respondents through Mr. Rajesh Sethi, 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 20.09.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa whereby the petitioner's appeal against the order of the Additional Civil Judge[Senior Division], Sirsa allowing application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, has been dismissed. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the respondents has put in appearance. While issuing notice of motion on 24.10.2005, the parties were directed to maintain status quo till further orders. The interim order dated 24.10.2005 is satisfactorily operating from last more than three and half years. It is stated by learned counsel for the parties that though the suit is yet to be decided, but the same is near to conclusion and is now fixed for defendants' evidence. Since the interim order is operating from last more than three and half years, in my considered view, there is no need to go into the rival contentions. Rather, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the revision petition with a direction that the interim order as granted by this Court shall continue to operate till the civil suit is decided. Nothing said in the impugned order as also this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Disposed of. April 22, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE