IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2798 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.4.2010. Tilak Raj Nayyar ....Petitioner Versus Anirudh Sharma ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL, J **** Challenge in the present petition is to the orders passed by learned Courts below whereby in a suit filed by respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction seeking to protect possession on plot measuring 9 marlas, the learned Courts below have granted status-quo regarding possession. The case of the petitioner is that he had purchased the property in question from Ram Murti vide registered sale deed dated February 23, 1998 and is in possession since then. His name was even entered in the revenue record as owner of the property. The respondent/plaintiff claimed that he had purchased the property in question vide registered sale deed dated September 2, 2008 from some one else, who according to the petitioner was not even owner of the property. Though the possession of the property is with the petitioner but still on account of orders passed by learned Courts below granting status-quo, the petitioner is not able to raise construction on the plot. This is how the orders passed by learned Court below are prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. In fact the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff deserves to be disallowed. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any substance in the submission that during the pendency of suit before the Court below the nature of the property should be permitted to be changed by raising construction thereon as the same may prejudice the case of either of the parties. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 29.4.2010. JUDGE Reema