1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3027 of 2011. Date of Decision: 6.5.2011 *** Ram Niwas & Anr .. Petitioners VS. Hanuman Parshad .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. R.M. Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The present petitioners are being sued by the respondent- plaintiff in the suit for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the former from using the wall CD by way of putting any girders and placing stone stabs etc. Along with the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed, which after contest was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 13.6.2009. Aggrieved with the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal and the appellate Court below by dint of order dated 3.2.2011 directed the parties to maintain status quo over the wall in dispute during the pendency of the suit. This has necessitated the defendants to file the instant revision petition. Heard. It is evident from the record that the issue involved in the suit was required to be adjudicated upon only on the basis of evidence led by the parties and in this view of the matter the learned appellate Court below, rightly directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the wall in dispute, just to avoid any further litigation and multiplicity of proceedings, between them. There is no illegality in the impugned order. The order 2 passed by the appellate Court below needs no interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the disposal of pending suit. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 06,2011 Jiten