C.R.No.714 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No. 714 of 2009 Date of decision: 8.4.2010 Balinder Kumar and others .....Petitioners. vs. M/s Gupta Trunk House ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.J.R.Mittal,Senior Advocate, with Mr.Kashmira Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is defendants' revision petition challenging the order dated 6.1.2009 passed by Additional District Judge,Kaithal, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the order dated 20.5.2008 whereby the Civil Judge(Junior Division) Kaithal, had dismissed the application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for ad interim injunction, has been accepted. As per the averments, the plaintiff-respondent claimed that he is in possession of the suit property as a tenant under the landlord, whereas, the case of the petitioners is that the plaintiff is neither the tenant nor in possession of the suit property. Along with the suit, an application for ad interim injunction was filed by the plaintiff-respondent which was dismissed. However, on appeal the Additional District Judge,Kaithal, vide C.R.No.714 of 2009 2 impugned order dated 6.1.2009, has allowed the appeal and has restrained the petitioners from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff- respondent over the suit property and has further restrained the petitioners from dispossessing the respondent from the suit property except in due course of law. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The suit is at the evidence stage. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within one year. Till then the parties to the suit shall maintain status quo with regard to the possession of the property. However, it is made clear that any observation made by the Courts below or this Court while deciding the application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, in any way. Disposed of. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge April 8, 2010 rk