C.R. No. 1020 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1020 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 13.07.2009 Joginder Singh .......... Petitioner Versus Bal Kishan ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surinder S. Kaliramna, Advocate for respondent No.4. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 4.2.2008, passed by the learned lower appellate Court, vide which appeal filed by the petitioner, stands dismissed. The plaintiff / respondent brought a suit for declaration to challenge the sale deed, said to have been executed by him, in favour of the petitioner. Consequential relief of permanent injunction was also claimed. The plaintiff / respondent moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking injunction against his dispossession, during the pendency of the suit. The learned trial Court, finding a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff / respondent, allowed the injunction application, and restrained C.R. No. 1020 of 2008 2 the petitioner herein from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff / respondent. The petitioner filed appeal against the order passed by the learned trial Court. The learned lower appellate Court, in view of the respective stands taken by the parties, formed the view that the parties should maintain status quo. However, the learned lower appellate Court while directing the parties to maintain status quo, dismissed the appeal on the presumption, that the learned trial Court had ordered the maintenance of status quo, whereas in fact the learned trial Court had granted injunction. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the findings recorded by the learned appellate Court the appeal should have been allowed and the order of the learned trial Court modified, to that of status quo. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment passed by the learned lower appellate Court, primarily on the plea, that the learned lower appellate Court, in view of the respective stands taken by the parties, did not find any ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment. On consideration of the matter, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once the learned lower appellate Court, recorded that the parties were to maintain status quo, the appeal should have been partly allowed and not dismissed. The operative part of order passed by the learned lower appellate Court is not in consonance with body of the order. The order therefore needs to be C.R. No. 1020 of 2008 3 modified. Consequently, this revision is disposed of with a direction, that in view of the findings, recorded by the learned lower appellate Court, the operative part of judgment of learned lower appellate Court is modified, to read, that the appeal is partly allowed, and that the parties are directed to maintain status quo during the pendency of suit. The Civil revision is disposed of. 13.07.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE