IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO. No. 629 of 2008. Date of Decision: 23.12.2010. _______________________________________________ H.P.Wakf Board and another. ….Appellants. Versus. Nanhe Khan. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellants: Mr.Imran Khan, Advocate. For respondent: :Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The appellant has preferred this appeal against the interim order passed by the learned District Judge,Shimla (Exercising the powers of Wakf Tribunal under the provisions of Wakf Act, 1995). The respondent herein had preferred an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking interim directions that he should not be forcibly dispossessed from the top floor and attic of Kutub Mosque, near Sabzi Mandi, Lower Bazar Shimla. This application was instituted in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction by the applicant-respondent praying for a decree of Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes. 2 injunction restraining the Wakf Board from interfering in his peaceful possession. It is undisputed before me that the suit is still pending for final adjudication before the learned Tribunal and that the respondent is in possession of the suit premises for which a suit has been filed. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants as also the learned counsel for the respondent. This appeal was instituted in the year 2008. The interim order on a plain reading, does not in any manner determine the final rights of the parties. All it seeks is to protect the possession of the respondent till his dispossession in accordance with law. The grounds on which the eviction is sought is the subject matter of the suit which is being contested before the learned Court below. In these circumstances, the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the respondent has an unfair advantage and his right has been finally adjudicated on the observations made by the learned District Judge exercising the powers of the Tribunal, cannot be accepted. All I need add is that whatever observation has been made by the learned Court is confined to the controversy in the interim application. The rights will be determined on the settled issues and the evidence which is placed on the record of the case. This appeal is accordingly disposed of with the direction that the learned Court shall expedite the hearing of the suit considering that it was filed in the year 2007. An 3 endeavour shall be made not to grant undue adjournment. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. All interim applications are disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. December 23, 2010(R)