IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 6626 of 2005. Date of Decision: 1st April, 2009. Gurudatt Gupta ....Petitioner through Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate Versus Rameshwar Dass Gupta Respondent through Mr. C.B.Goel, 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 19.9.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra whereby the respondent-plaintiff's appeal has been allowed and the interim injunction order dated 18.3.2005 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge [Senior Division], Kurukshetra was set aside. While admitting this revision petition, this Court passed the following order on 8.9.2006:- “Admitted. In the meantime, the petitioner shall not be restrained from using first floor of the shop in question by ensuring that the possession of the plaintiff-respondent over the shop in dispute as tenant, shall not be interfered with, in any manner”. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that the civil suit is still pending. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view regard to the fact that the interim order dated 8.9.2006 is operating from last more than two years, I do not deem it necessary to go into the rival contentions of the parties so that no prejudice is caused in the pending suit, rather deem it appropriate to dispose of this revision petition with a direction that the interim order dated 8.9.2006 shall continue to operate till the suit is decided. Disposed of. April 01, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE