IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 74 of 2011 Date of decision: 16.3.2011 Vipat Ram and others …Petitioners. Versus Dayal Chand another others ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: None. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Solan dated 1st October, 2010 whereby he rejected the appeal filed by the present petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) and confirmed the order passed by the learned trail Court dismissing the application for stay filed by the plaintiffs. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs claim that they are owners of the suit property but the same has wrongly been shown in the revenue record in the name of the defendants-respondents to the extent of ½ share. The plaintiffs further claim that 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 the respondents be restrained from taking compensation awarded in land acquisition proceedings qua some of the suit land. Both the Courts below have come to a concurrent finding of fact that no prima facie case is made out. At this stage, the revenue entries are in favour of the defendants and before trial it cannot be said that the revenue entries are wrong. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. 3. I, however, find that the suit was instituted in April, 2005 and almost six years have elapsed and the suit is still at the stage of framing of issues. The learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as early as possible and in any event not later than 31st March, 2012. 16th March, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge