IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1320 of 2010 Date of decision: 26.2.2010 The State of Haryana and anr. ......Petitioner(s) Versus Smt. Usha Rani and ors. ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr.Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This is defendants' revision petition challenging the impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge, Panipat, whereby on the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff- respondents, the parties to the suit have been directed to maintain status quo in respect of the disputed Rasta till the decision of the case. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court is that while passing the impugned order, the Lower Appellate Court has not appreciated the fact that the suit of the plaintiff-respondents is absolutely without any merit and the documents including the report of the Local Commissioner do not support the case of the plaintiff- respondents. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. As per the pleadings, the plaintiff-respondents are using the disputed Rasta for the last 25 years and they do not have any other Rasta except the disputed Rasta for ingress and egress from their houses. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are going to construct the boundary wall of the Mini Secretariat, Panipat, in the disputed land. The plaintiffs are claiming their right on the basis of the sale deed executed in their favour by their vendors. In the aforesaid sale deeds, 15 feet wide Rasta has been CR No.1320 of 2010 -2- shown. It is a matter of evidence as to whether any Rasta was left by the vendors to the plaintiff-respondents or not and further that they have acquired an easmentary right by way of prescription and necessity to use the disputed Rasta as a passage for ingress and egress from their houses, which can be decided only after the evidence is concluded. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned order of the Lower Appellate Court whereby the parties have been ordered to maintain status quo in respect of the disputed Rasta till the decision of the case and further, the trial court has been directed to dispose of the main suit expeditiously, preferable within one year. No merits. Dismissed. February 26, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE