Civil Revision No. 3622 of 2009 (O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3622 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 1.2.2010 Jai Narayan and another ... Petitioners vs Mahavir and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for respondents no. 1 to 6. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the orders passed by the courts below whereby in an application filed by plaintiffs- respondents no. 1 to 6 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in a suit challenging the earlier decree passed by the Civil Court on 4.9.1999 and also the partition proceedings, the learned court below directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession of land falling in khewat no. 8 and 13, however, the petitioners were restrained from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs over the land falling in khewat no. 6 and 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in a petition filed by the petitioners for partition, the land was partitioned on 23.6.1982 and Sanad Taksim was prepared and the possession was also delivered to the parties on 12.10.1982. One of the co-sharers initiated fresh partition proceedings, which concluded on 15.12.1989. The same were challenged by the petitioners by filing a suit. Vide judgment dated 4.9.1999 the court below decreed the suit and set aside the order of partition dated 15.12.1989. Even another suit challenging the order dated 23.6.1982 regarding partition proceedings was also dismissed by the Civil Court on 21.3.1989. Referring to the aforesaid documents, it was submitted that the petitioners have already been delivered possession in terms of the order passed in their favour long back. The grant of interim stay in favour of plaintiffs- respondents no. 1 to 6 is totally contrary to the material on record and deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 6 submitted that during the course of hearing of the application before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari, it was admitted by the petitioners that the plaintiffs are in possession of land forming part of khewat no. 6 Civil Revision No. 3622 of 2009 (O&M) -2- and 7 whereas both the parties were claiming their possession over the land forming khewat no. 8 and 13. Considering these facts the learned court below directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the land falling in khewat no. 8 and 13, however, the petitioners were restrained from interfering into the possession of the respondents/plaintiffs over the land falling in khewat no. 6 and 7. Once the aforesaid facts were admitted before the court below on a specific query, there is no question of challenge to the same before this court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present petition, as to whether partition was correctly carried out or the judgment and decree dated 4.9.1999, which has been challenged by the respondents in the suit filed is a result of fraud or collusion is yet to be gone into by the learned court below. However, the fact remain that on a query of the court below it was admitted by the petitioners that the respondents-plaintiffs were in possession of the land forming khewat no. 6 and 7 and the dispute was raised with regard to the possession of land forming khewat no. 8 and 13. Under these circumstances, the direction of the learned courts below regarding maintaining the status quo with regard to the possession over the land forming khewat no. 8 and 13 and restraining the petitioners-defendants from interfering into the possession of land forming khewat no. 6 and 7 cannot be faulted with. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 1.2.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge