Civil Revision No. 4859 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … Civil Revision No. 4859 of 2008 Date of decision: May 18,2009 Harpreet Singh and another ..Petitioners. Versus Mukhtiar Singh and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.G.S.Sirphikhi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.K.Arya, Advocate for the respondents. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is plaintiffs' revision petition challenging the order dat ed 9.8.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the appeal filed by the defendant-respondents against the order dated 26.11.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Batala directing both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession was set aside. As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs or dispossessing them from the suit land illegally, forcibly and except in due course of law. Along with the plaint, the petitioners also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for ad interim injunction. Upon notice, the defendants contested the suit and filed written statement. Reply to the application for ad interim injunction was also filed. Defendant-respondents also filed a counter claim stating that in partition Khasra Numbers 17R/18/2(4-9), 19(7-12), 20/1(2-0), 21(4-0), 23/1(2-6), 5R/13/1(0-16), 17R/20/2(6-0) including the khasra No. 17/R/11/2(2-0) i.e., the land of which the plaintiffs-petitioners sought the ad interim injunction, had fallen into the share of the defendants-respondents and prayed for a decree of perpetual injunction. Civil Revision No. 4859 of 2008 2 Along with the counter claim, the defendant-respondents also filed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 with Section 151 CPC for ad interim injunction. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Batala vide order dated 26.11.2007 on the application filed by the petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC held that since both the parties are claiming themselves to be in possession over the suit land thus directed both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession over the suit land till disposal of the suit. On 13.2.2008, the trial Court on the application filed by the defendant-respondents under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC along with the counter claim directed both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession after relying upon the order dated 26.11.2007 which was passed on the application of the petitioners. The defendant-respondents filed an appeal before the lower Appellate Court against the order dated 26.11.2007(Annexure P-1) challenging the status quo order granted by the trial Court on the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioners. The Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide impugned order accepted the appeal and dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that in the same suit, the trial Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession vide order dated 13.2.2008 on the application filed by the defendant-respondents and therefore, there was no occasion for the lower Appellate Court to pass a different order by setting aside the order dated 26.11.2007, which was passed on the application of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Both the parties who are co-sharers are claiming possession over the suit property in dispute. It is well settled that exclusive possession over a particular piece of land by the co-sharer is subject to the adjustment at the time Civil Revision No. 4859 of 2008 3 of partition between the parties. Since the parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession over the suit land vide order dated 13.2.2008 on the application filed by the respondents and which is still operating, equally binds both the parties and therefore, the impugned order dated 9.8.2008 is of no effect. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the parties maintain status quo with regard to the possession over the suit land during the pendency of the suit. However, it will be open to either of the parties to move an appropriate application before the trial Court if the partition proceedings which are pending before the revenue authorities between the parties are finalized and are given effect to. Disposed of. May 18, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE