Civil Revision No. 4240 of 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4240 of 2003 Date of decision:21st August, 2009 Smt. Satya ……Petitioner Versus Nand Lal and others ……Respondents Before: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Tushant Deep Garg, Advocate for Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajive Bhalla, J Prayer in this petition is for setting aside the order dated 9.08.2001, passed by the Additional District Judge, Nawanshahr. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from alienating the suit property or raising any construction thereon. The plaint was accompanied by an application for grant of an interim injunction. On 6.06.2000, respondents no. 2 and 4, namely Ram Parkash and Tarsem Lal were proceeded against ex parte. Respondents no. 1 and 3 Nand Lal and Dev Raj suffered a statement that they have no objection, if the order of status quo, is made absolute till the decision of the case. On the basis of this statement, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nawanshahr, directed parties to maintain status quo with respect to alienation and construction, during the 1 Civil Revision No. 4240 of 2003 pendency of the suit. Respondent no. 1 Nand Lal, filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 for setting aside the order dated 6.06.2000. The trial court, dismissed the application vide order dated 13.12.2000. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, he filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 9.08.2001, the Additional District Judge, Nawanshar, allowed the appeal and set aside the order granting status quo. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the dispute relates to ownership and possession of immovable property, it is submitted that in case the respondents, alienate the suit land or raise any construction, it would adversely affect the rights of the petitioner. It is also argued that, the appellate court was swayed by allegations against the counsel and lost sight of the dispute regarding the injunction. Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. The first appellate court vacated the order of status quo by holding that Nand Lal was influenced by Shri D.P.Jangra, Advocate to suffer a statement conceding the petitioner's prayer. This apart, the appellate court lost sight of its duty, as a court, to ensure that the suit property is not frittered away or its nature altered to the detriment of the parties. In case respondents are allowed to sell the suit land or to raise construction, it would be necessarily cause irreparable loss, harm and damage to the petitioner. 2 Civil Revision No. 4240 of 2003 As a consequence, it would be appropriate that the order dated 9.08.2001, the Additional District Judge, Nawashahr, is set aside and during the pendency of the suit, the parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to construction and possession, In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the present petition stands disposed of accordingly. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 21st August, 2009 SKaushik 3