Civil Revision No.8255 of 2010(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.8255 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: January 09, 2011 Anju Chhabra and another ... Petitioners Versus Sukhmander Singh @ Harinder Singh and another ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.Anish Setia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the respondents. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This plaintiffs' revision is directed against the order dated August 02nd, 2010 (Annexure P4) passed by Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, whereby, order dated August 27th, 2009 (Annexure P3) of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar was modified. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from illegally and unlawfully damaging or demolishing the building of a factory constructed over Khasra No.1546/2, situated at Malout Road, Abohar. Along with the suit, application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed. Defendants filed written statement averring that under the garb of the suit, plaintiffs wanted to dispossess them from the possession of the property over Khasra No.1495/1. By order Annexure P3, the Trial Court accepted the application and restrained the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over Khasra Nos1495/1 and 1546/2. Against the said order, defendants filed appeal and the Appellate Court modified the order qua Khasra No.1495/1. Civil Revision No.8255 of 2010(O&M) [2] 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has assailed the order of the Appellate Court on the ground that it should not have set aside the findings of the Civil Judge, because plaintiffs are also owners in possession of Khasra No.1495/1 in view of the sale-deed dated November 14th, 1960 (Annexure P1). So, at the most, the parties should have been directed to maintain the status quo over the said Khasra Number also. Counsel for the plaintiffs has also referred to the reports of two Local Commissioners, as finds mention in the order of the Trial Court (Annexure P3), wherein, it was stated that plaintiffs are in possession over Khasra Nos.1546 and 1495/1. 4. Learned counsel for the defendants has urged that though plaintiffs have relied upon the sale deed (Annexure P1) allegedly executed by the defendants in their favour, but in the revenue records, defendants are shown to be the owners in possession. He has further urged that a civil suit has also been filed by the defendants for possession over Khasra No.1495/1 and the Civil Court has already directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to this Khasra number. So, if the parties are directed to maintain the status quo, it shall make no difference. 5. In view of the submission of the counsel for the defendants, it will be in the fitness of things that the parties are directed to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit. 6. Hence, the revision is accepted and the order, under challenge, is modified in the manner, indicated above. January 09, 2011 ( NAWAB SINGH ) `gian' JUDGE