CMPMO No.256 of 2007. 7.1.2008. Present: Mr. K.S. Banyal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. After hearing the detailed arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned judgment dated 12th October, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi camp at Karsog in CMA No.20/2007 arising out of order dated 26th July, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karsog, I find that whereas the learned trial Court had allowed the temporary injunction application of the petitioners and directed that qua the land and shop in question the parties to the suit shall maintain status quo, the learned Additional District Judge reversing the aforesaid order of the learned trial Court dismissed the temporary injunction application of the petitioners-plaintiffs and while setting aside the order passed by the learned trial Court vacated the direction with respect to the parties maintaining status quo. The petitioners-plaintiffs do contend that the suit land as well as the shop belongs to them. They claim ownership about the same. At the same time, they do concede and admit that the shop had been in possession of respondents No.1 to 3. According to them the possessory right of these respondents stems from and 2 is based on their status as tenants. On the other hand, respondents No.1 to 3 claim that the property in question was sold by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners by and through an oral sale effected in the year 1955 followed by a writing to the same effect executed on 3rd December, 1956. It is the undisputed case of the parties that at the relevant time, Registration Act was not applicable in the area comprising Karsog Tehsil and, therefore, sale both orally as well as through the medium of a simple writing was permissible. There are various disputes between the parties about the revenue entries, whether these are correct or wrong. Rival contentions do revolve around the title of the property. Whereas the petitioners claim ownership title, respondents No.1 to 3 contest the same and lay their rival claim about them being the owners of the property in question. The fact, however, remains that the petitioners do not dispute about the possession of the property, including the shop, with respondents No.1 to 3. Respondents No.1 to 3 have been in continuous possession of the property. It is stated at the Bar that a substantial portion of construction has already been raised. Maintaining status quo would amount to keeping the major constructed portion in abeyance in the process depriving its user which will not be in the interest of any of the parties. Based upon the aforesaid, I am inclined to dismiss this petition and while affirming and upholding 3 the impugned judgment dated 12th October, 2007 do wish to impose a condition as far as respondents No.1 to 3 are concerned which will, to my mind protect the interest of the parties. The petition is dismissed. The impugned judgment is affirmed. However, respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to file a written undertaking in four weeks from today in the learned trial Court in the pending suit to the effect that if the suit ultimately is decided against them, they shall not claim any equitable consideration in their favour nor the cost of the structure if they are asked to pull it down and if a direction is issued by the learned trial Court either through the medium of a decree or otherwise they shall abide by that direction strictly in its letter and spirit. It is only subject to the filing of the aforesaid undertaking and thereafter that the respondents shall be permitted to carry on with the construction and complete the same which, as mentioned hereinabove will be at their own risk and responsibility. CMPs No.906 and 907 of 2007. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, both the applications shall stand dismissed. Interim order dated 6th November, 2007 is vacated. 7th January, 2008. (V.K. Gupta), C.J. (tr)