1 C.R. No. 492 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- Civil Revision No. 492 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.09.2009 Kar Sewa Dera Hira Bagh Charitable Trust, Patiala --Petitioner Versus Piara Singh and others -- Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL *** PRESENT: Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. G.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the respondents. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the prayer is for quashing the order dated 3.10.2008, Annexure P-4, whereby the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Patiala dismissed the application of the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into peaceful possession and management over the plaintiff- Trust property with a boundary wall, rooms etc. with electricity installed in a room, Langar Hall, foundation, gate, safaida and other trees detailed and described in the heading of the application and also the order dated 7.1.2009, Annexure P-6, passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, dismissing the appeal against the order, Annexure P-4. 2 C.R. No. 492 of 2009 This Court on 30.1.2009 while admitting the revision petition had granted interim injunction against the respondents from interfering in the possession of the petitioner. This revision petition can be disposed of on the basis of consensus between the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the suit before the trial court is now fixed for 25.9.2009 for evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner and if three effective opportunities are provided to the petitioner within this year i.e. up till 31.12.2009, it will conclude its entire evidence. On other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents also states that the defendants shall also conclude their entire evidence if they are provided three effective opportunities spreading over a period up to 30.4.2010. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents further submitted that the defendants are in possession of the land in dispute and, therefore, the interim injunction granted by this Court may be vacated. This submission has been opposed by counsel appearing for the petitioner who, in turn, submitted that it is in fact the petitioner who is in possession of the property in dispute. In the wake of the rival claim laid by the respective parties with regard to the possession over the property in dispute, the counsel for the parties agreed that having regard to the incompatible stand of the parties, they be directed to maintain status quo regarding possession of the property. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record with their assistance, especially the consensus 3 C.R. No. 492 of 2009 referred to above, this revision petition is disposed of with a direction that the trial court shall grant three effective opportunities to the petitioner, spreading over a period up to 31.12.2009 and thereafter afford same number of effective opportunities to the defendants during the period ranging up to 30.4.2010 for leading their evidence. The trial court shall thereafter make sincere endeavour to dispose of the suit on or before 31.5.2010. The parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the possession of the suit property till final disposal of the suit. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) September 17, 2009 JUDGE *RKMALIK