IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 216 of 2011 Decided on: 23.08.2011 Madan Lal & others …Petitioners. Versus Suresh Kumar & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Vishal Mohan and Mr. Y.K. Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. T. S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) Respondents No. 3 and 4 served, but not present. Hence, proceeded against ex-parte. I find that it is not necessary to serve respondent No. 5, since he was one of the co- defendants alongwith the present petitioners in the main suit and his stand was similar to that of the petitioners. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 30.04.2011, whereby the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, allowed the appeal of the plaintiffs and granted an interim 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2 :- injunction in their favour directing both the parties to maintain status quo qua the nature and possession of the suit property and set aside the order of the learned trial Court dismissing the application filed by the plaintiffs for grant of interim relief. 3. Brief facts necessary for decision of this case are that the plaintiffs are the grandsons of Shri Govind Ram. They are the sons of Shri Ram Pal. Shri Govind Ram had four sons, namely S/Shri Roop Lal, Ram Dass, Ram Pal (father of the plaintiffs) and Jagdish. The case of the plaintiffs is that Shri Govind Ram willed his share in the property in their favour by a Will executed in the year 1987. On the other hand, the case of the defendants is that, in fact, Shri Govind Ram during his life time had partitioned and divided all his property amongst his four sons and nothing was left with Shri Govind Ram which could be willed away by him. 4. The defendants rely upon the judgment dated 02.11.1991 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Ghumarwin in support of their case. At this stage, prima facie, the judgment dated 02.11.1991 has to be accepted to be correct, but the judgment, in my view, does not clearly indicate whether Shri Govind Ram was left with any share in the property or not. This is a question which will have to be decided after seeing the pleadings in the previous suit and after considering what were the issues framed in the previous suit, etc. -: 3 :- 5. The question regarding the validity of the Will will arise only if Shri Govind Ram had a share in the property. These matters are required to be gone into and the learned lower Appellate Court was right in holding that it cannot be said that the plaintiffs have no prima facie case, whatsoever. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. It is, however, clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and observations made hereinabove have only been made for the purpose of deciding the present petition and will have no bearings on the decision of the main suit. Keeping in view the fact that the suit was filed in the year 2008 and the suit involves a dispute between family members, the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit latest by 30th June, 2012. (Deepak Gupta) Judge August 23, 2011 (rajni)