IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 2015 of 2007. Date of Decision: 18th January, 2008... Mohan ....Petitioner through Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate Versus Rajesh & Ors. Respondent through Mr. Harkesh Manuja, 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 24.2.2007 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat vide which appeal preferred by respondents NO. 1 and 2, who are defendants in the suit, has been accepted and the order dated 5.8.2006 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat upon an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. whereby both the parties were directed to maintain status-quo, has been set aside. The afore-stated order has been set aside by the learned Appellate Court after relying upon an alleged affidavit of one Nar Singh, stated to be grand-father of the plaintiff/petitioner. Concededly, in the revenue record, in the column of possession, father of the petitioner/plaintiff is shown to be Gair Mumkin Avwal whereas the defendant-respondents are shown as Gair Mumkin Doyam. In a case like this, where from the revenue record it is not clear as to which party is in physical possession of the suit property, the better course for the Courts below would have been to direct both the parties to maintain status-quo as it existed on the date when the order is passed. The learned trial Court appears to have followed the right course when it directed both the parties to maintain status-quo. Consequently, the order dated 24.2.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat is set aside and the parties are directed to maintain status-quo re: possession over the suit property during the pendency of the suit. The observations made here-in-above and/or in the impugned orders shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. It shall, however, be desirable if the trial proceedings are concluded as early as possible. Disposed of. January 18, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE