1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1732 of 2010 Date of Decision: 13.7.2011 *** Dilbagh Singh & Ors. .. Petitioners VS. Yusaf & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Anish Setia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Paramjit Verma, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Verma, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The present petitioners, who are being sued by the respondent No.1-plaintiff in the suit for permanent injunction, are aggrieved with orders dated 24.10.2008 and 6.10.2009 by virtue of which they as well as respondents No.2 to 4 have been restrained by the learned trial Court from interfering into possession of respondent No.1 over the suit property and the learned appellate Court below dismissed their appeal against the said order, respectively. Heard. It is the case of the petitioners-defendants that they had purchased the suit land from respondent No.2 Ramesh Chander and were put in possession thereof and that respondent No.1-plaintiff Yusaf has no concern with the same. No doubt the petitioners have stepped into the shoes of previous owner Ramesh Chander, however, the perusal of impugned order reveals that the revenue record produced on record reflects the possession of the plaintiff on the suit land as a tenant under respondent No.2 2 Ramesh Chander and in an another round of litigation, the plaintiff was held in possession of the suit land. It has not been shown whether the possession was reverted to respondent No.2, who subsequently delivered the same to the petitioners. Now both the parties are asserting their possession over the suit land and in the considered opinion of this Court this issue can be adjudicated only after the parties led their respective evidence. In order to avoid any complicity during trial and to restrain them from changing the nature of suit land, it will be in the interest of justice, if the parties to the suit shall maintain status quo as prevailing at the spot, instead of only restraining the petitioners from interfering in the possession of respondent No.1 over the suit land. It is ordered accordingly. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the disposal of pending suit and dispose it of preferable within six months. With the aforesaid modification, the instant revision petition stands disposed of. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 13,2011 Jiten