C.R NO. 3603 OF 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R NO. 3603 OF 2004 DECIDED ON : 27.03.2009 Smt. Phulpati and others ...Petitioners versus Smt. Manbhari and others ...Respondents AND C.R NO. 5953 OF 2004 State of Haryana ...Petitioner versus Smt. Manbhari and others ...Respondents 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 ? Present : Mr. T. C. Dhanwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R. D. Sharma, Senior DAG, Haryana. C.R NO. 3603 OF 2004 -2- SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of two civil revisions bearing Nos. 3603 and 5953 of 2004, as both have arisen out of the same impugned orders. For brevity, the facts are being taken from C.R No. 3603 of 2004. The petitioners in C.R No. 3603 of 2004 are the allottees of the surplus land, whereas the connected revision petition has been filed by State of Haryana. The suit has been filed by the respondents-legal heirs of the big land owner. Their prayer for ad-interim injuction was declined by the learned trial Court vide order dated 26.03.2004, but the learned Additional District Judge accepted their appeal and granted ad-interim injunction against dispossession. Aggrieved, the allottees of the land, as well as, State of Haryana have instituted these revision petitions. This Court vide order dated 09.12.2004 passed in revision petition preferred by State of Haryana bearing No. 5953 of 2004, directed the parties to maintain status-quo regarding possession. Thereafter, vide order dated January 08, 2007 passed in this revision petition, operation of the impugned order of learned District Judge was stayed. It would, thus, be seen that the interim protection in favour of the petitioners is continuing since the year 2004. The parties appear to have reconciled with the interim arrangement. It would not, therefore, be prudent or C.R NO. 3603 OF 2004 -3- expedient to express any views relating to the case, more so, when the suit is near completion. Consequently, both the revision petitions are disposed of with a direction that the interim orders granted by this Court, referred to above, would continue to operate till the civil suit is decided. Disposed of. MARCH 27, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE