Civil Revision No. 5836 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.3.2010 (1) Civil Revision No. 5836 of 2008 (O&M) Surjeet Singh .. Petitioner v. Joginder Singh and others .. Respondents. (2) Civil Revision No. 3341 of 2009 (O&M) Surjeet Singh .. Petitioner v. Joginder Singh and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Dr. Surya Parkash Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. O. P. Hoshiarpuri, Advocate for the respondents along with Mr. Joginder Singh in person. .. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the above-mentioned two petitions bearing CR No. 5836 of 2008 and 3341 of 2009, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In Civil Revision No. 5836 of 2008, challenge is to the order dated 26.9.2008, passed by the learned court below, whereby interim stay granted by the trial court in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff granting status quo, was vacated. It was in the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell. In Civil Revision No. 3341 of 2009, challenge by the petitioner- defendant is against the order dated 26.9.2008, passed by the learned court below, whereby the status quo regarding possession granted by the trial court was further modified to the extent that the petitioner-defendant therein was restrained from interfering into peaceful possession of the respondents-plaintiffs on the suit land. Civil Revision No. 5836 of 2008 [2] Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only injunction which the petitioner is praying for in Civil Revision No. 5836 of 2008, arising out of a suit filed by him for in a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell is that alienation of the property in dispute be stayed and also that the respondents- defendants therein be restrained from transferring the possession of the property to any other person, whereas in Civil Revision No. 3341 of 2009, the prayer is for directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents do not have any intention to alienate the property to any third person. In fact, presently they are getting the land in dispute cultivated through their servants. The effort is also not to transfer the possession to any one else which may create any problem in future. It was further submitted that the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff in the civil suit filed by him for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell has been closed by order of the court on 8.3.2010 and now the case is fixed for evidence of the respondents for 15.4.2010. As far as the suit filed by the plaintiffs in Civil Revision No. 3341 of 2009 for permanent injunction is concerned, it is brought to the notice of the court that evidence of both the parties is complete and now the case is fixed for arguments for 15.4.2010. Considering the fact that both the parties are claiming that they are in possession of the suit property and the dispute regarding possession of the property between two parties, who are brothers, is being settled by the learned trial court in a suit filed by Joginder Singh and another seeking injunction against Surjeet Singh from interfering into peaceful possession of the property. In that suit, entire evidence of the parties is complete and the trial court will record a finding about the actual physical possession of either of the parties. At this stage, it would not be appropriate for this Court to record any tentative finding regarding possession. As regards the suit filed by Surjeet Singh for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell is concerned, suffice to state that his grievance is redressed on the stand of learned counsel for the respondents that they have no intention to alienate the property in question or part with its possession to any one else on permanent basis, though they are getting it cultivated through their servants. The petitions are disposed of accordingly. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 11.3.2010/mk