Civil Revision No.8209 of 2010 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.8209 of 2010 Date of decision: September 12, 2011. Darshan Singh ... Petitioner v. Jagroop Singh & Ors. ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Ravish Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Present revision petition has been filed praying that the impugned order dated 18.10.2010 (Annexure P-7) passed by the court of Additional District Judge, Barnala whereby the ad-interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner was set aside, be quashed and the order passed by the trial court be restored. A Coordinate Bench of this Court on 22.12.2010, while issuing notice of motion, had passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that plaintiff petitioner is in possession over the suit land for last more than 20 years and possession of the plaintiff is recorded in the revenue record as gair marausi, i.e., tenant. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that because of long established possession, plaintiff cannot be dispossessed without adopting Civil Revision No.8209 of 2010 -: 2 :- due procedure of law. Notice of motion for 25.3.2011. Respondents shall be served through the counsel appearing before the trial court on their behalf Dasti as well as by registered post in addition to normal mode of service on steps being taken by the petitioners within 48 hours. Meanwhile, parties are directed to maintain status quo qua the possession and nature of the property. However, it is clarified that status quo granted shall not be construed to mean the stay of suit proceedings. Learned trial court shall proceed with the suit at its own merit in accordance with law." I have heard Counsel for the parties. In the present case, the suit was filed in May 2009. It is stated that the suit is progressing and part of the plaintiff's evidence was recorded. Counsel for the parties pray that in case three effective opportunities are granted to both the sides to conclude their evidence and the suit is decided within a stipulated time-frame, the ad-interim order passed by this Court on 22.10.2010 may continue. After hearing Counsel for the parties, the trial court is directed is decide the suit within a period of one year by providing three effective opportunities to both the parties to lead their respective evidence. Till the conclusion of the suit, ad-interim order dated 22.12.2010 shall continue. The petition is disposed of. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] September 12, 2011. Judge kadyan