IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 160 of 2007 Date of decision: 19.6.2008 Pal Singh and others. Petitioners. Versus Bhagat Ram and others Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 21st May, 2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, whereby he set-aside the order dated 17.8.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No. IV, Mandi. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondents (here-in-after referred to as the plaintiffs) filed a suit against the petitioner No. 1 and 2. Later on petitioner No. 3 and 4 were added as party respondents in the said suit. The petitioners are here-in-after referred to as the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. property is joint property but is in their exclusive possession and the respondents be restrained form interfering in the same. Alongwith the suit, an application for interim relief was also filed. This application was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide her order dated 17.8.2006. Aggrieved against the said order, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Court of the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge has passed an order of restraint only against the petitioners No. 1 and 2, i.e. Pal Singh and Parma Devi and there is no order against the true owner i.e. Mohender Singh and Dinesh Singh. Aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge, this petition has been filed. No stay was granted in the case and on 15th May, 2008, I had called for the records of the case. On perusal of the record, I find that evidence in the case is complete and in fact the case was listed for argument for 11.6.2008 but obviously could not be heard because the file was called for by this Court. Keeping in view the fact that the case is ripe for arguments and the main suit itself can be disposed of in a short time. I do not propose to decide the main petition on its own merits. This petition has been pending since July, 2007 and no stay was passed during this period. The petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the main suit at the earliest and in any event not later than 13th August, 2008. I may also make it clear that the learned trial Court while deciding the suit shall not at all be influenced by the observations of the learned trial Court or of the learned appellate Court made while deciding the interim application. Any observation made by the learned District Judge during the course of deciding interim application shall not be taken to be binding by the learned trial Court. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 15th July, 2008. 19th June, 2008 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™