IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.126 of 2008. Date of decision: 01.08.2008. Shiv Ram & Others …Petitioners Versus Raj Kumari …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioners: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the defendants against the order passed by the learned District Judge in an appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the order in an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for a grant of ad-interim injunction. Learned trial Court after consideration, dismissed the application instituted by the plaintiff Smt.Raj Kumari praying for interim directions. In appeal, the learned District Judge reversed the findings holding that the parties shall maintain status quo qua 1/4th share of the suit land and ½ 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 share of the disputed house and cow shed till disposal of the main suit in the following terms:- “8. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the parties are directed to maintain status quo qua ¼ share of the suit land and ½ share of the disputed house and cow-shed till disposal of the main suit. However, there shall be no embargo against defendant No.1 in alienating the remaining ¾ share of the suit land except the land bearing Khasra No.581 measuring 18 Marlas which is recorded as “Bairani-do-fasli” and “Gair Mumkin Abadi” and the disputed house and cow-shed situate therein. In view of the interese relationship between the parties, there shall be no order as to costs. 9. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove, are limited for disposal of the present appeal and the same shall have no bearing, whatsoever, on merits of the case. The parties through their learned Counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 21.4.2008. The trial Court record be returned with a copy of this judgment and that of this Court be consigned to Records.” 3 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has challenged the order on a number of grounds. One of the grounds urged by the learned counsel is that no prima facie case has been proved on the record and the second ground is that the matter has already been compromised in some other proceedings. So far as the question of compromise is concerned, it is a matter of evidence to be proved in accordance with law and cannot be adjudicated at this stage. On the question of existence of a prima facie case and balance of convenience, the Court has determined these questions on a correct appreciation of facts. I find from the order of the learned District Judge that no error has been committed in the exercise of the jurisdiction. I, therefore, find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. August 1, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.