IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.286 of 2011 (O and M) Date of Decision: February 17, 2011 Kashmir Lal and another ...APPELLANTS Versus The State of Punjab and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH .. Present: Mr. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate, for the appellants. ... SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The appellants were the respondents in the writ petition (CWP No.15955 of 2006) filed by one Jaswant Singh in which he had prayed for setting aside the order dated 20.2.2008 passed by the Chief Sales Commissioner, Ludhiana being illegal and unlawful, and further for issuing directions to the said respondent to grant him hearing and decide the case as per the directions of the Hon'ble Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by passing the following order:- “Counsel for the parties state on instructions, from their respective parties that in view of the pendency of a civil suit relating to the question of ownership, the writ petition may be disposed of, with a direction to the parties to maintain status- quo with respect to ownership and possession during the pendency of Civil Suit No.203 of 18.3.1997 (Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Punjab) and the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, may be directed to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within six months. LPA No.285 of 2011 -2- In view of the statements made by counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of, by directing the parties to maintain status-quo with respect to possession, ownership or creation of any third party rights during the pendency of civil suit. The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, is directed to decide the suit within six months.” The appellants have challenged the said order in this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the appellants want that a direction be issued to the Chief Sales Commissioner, Ludhiana to consider their prayer with regard to alternative plot. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and keeping in view the fact that the appellants were the respondents in the aforesaid writ petition and the said writ petition was disposed of with the consenting order, we do not find any ground to modify the said order. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants states that he may be permitted to withdraw this appeal. Dismissed as withdrawn. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE February 17, 2011 ( GURDEV SINGH ) vkg JUDGE