IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3701 of 2008 Date of decision: 28-10-2009 Krishan Gopal etc. Versus Nasib Chand etc. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. P.S.Sikand, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Saurav Bajaj, Advocate, for the respondents AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,J The plaintiff-petitioners have approached this court against the order 11.4.2008 passed by lower Appellate Court whereby order dated 28.3.2008 passed by the Trial Court allowing the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioners under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of temporary injunction, was set aside. The Trial Court while deciding the interim injunction application had restrained the defendant-respondents from dispossessing the plaintiff-petitioners from the suit land, i.e. Khasra No. 248, forcibly and illegally during the pendency of the case. Learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 11.4.2008 has set aside the order of the Trial Court and dismissed the application of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners submits that plaintiff-petitioners are in possession of the property in dispute, i.e. khasra No.248, on the basis of the jamabandi entries since 1997 till filing of the suit. However, the factum regarding possession of the plaintiff-petitioners has been controverted by the counsel for the respondents who has submitted that change in the revenue record in respect of khasra No.248 was wrongly effected in 1997 on the basis of mutation No.334. According to the learned counsel, the defendants-respondents are still in possession of the property, i.e. Khasra No.248, as possession thereof was never delivered to the petitioners even after the change of the revenue record. Since both the parties claim possession over the property in dispute and effect of the change in the revenue record in 1997 is yet to be decided in the proceedings before the Trial Court, learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that status quo regarding possession of the suit property may be ordered to be maintained by the parties during the pendency of the suit. In view of the above, this revision petition is disposed of by directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession of the suit property, i.e. khasra No.248, during the pendency of the suit. Trial Court is, however, directed to make sincere efforts for expeditious disposal of the suit. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE October 28, 2009 RSK