IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No.476 of 2008. Decided on: March 5, 2010 Deen Sahayak Trust(Sanstha) (Regd.) & others ….. Petitioner. Versus Jai Kumar and others …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice For the petitioner : Mr. Dharmavir Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Virender Rathore, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate for respondents No. 3 and 4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) This Petition is filed with the following prayers:- “a) That the order dated 23.7.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, H.P. in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 9. 2007 against the order dated 14.8.2006 passed in CMA No. 14-VI/2006 in Civil Suit No. 28/2006 whereby the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure had been dismissed may kindly be set aside and allow the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the present petitioner. 2 b) That the respondent No.1, Jai Kumar may be restrained not to sell, mortgage or transfer and create any encumbrance upon the suit land till the disposal of the suit. c) That the respondent No.1 and other respondents may kindly be restrained to maintain the status quo and not to alter the nature of the suit land, till the disposal of the suit. The respondents may further be restrained not to do aforesaid acts by themselves or through their agents and servants.” Though several contentions are taken by the parties, I do not think necessary to refer to all those contentions, particularly in the nature of the view this Court proposes to take in this case, essentially those might touch on the merits of the case, which the parties will have to agitate before the trial Court. Though it is emphatically submitted that the petitioners have no say in the property held and enjoyed by the respondents, since the suit is pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mandi, it is only appropriate that in the event of respondents intending to alienate the property the same shall be done only with the permission of the trial Court. Ordered accordingly. The Petition is disposed of, so also the pending application. March 5, 2010 (Justice Kurian Joseph), (rks) Chief Justice 3