C.R. No. 5219 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5219 of 2010 Date of Decision: 19.08.2010 Surinder and others .... Petitioners Versus Sudesh Devi and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. J.K. Sibbal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Manmeet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 2.6.2010 passed by Addl. District Judge, Rewari whereby an appeal filed by the defendants (respondents herein) was allowed and order of the trial Court on injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 was modified to the extent that both the parties shall maintain status quo qua the possession as it exists today at the spot till the final decision of the civil suit. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that learned trial Court while allowing the ad interim injunction application has recorded prima facie finding that plaintiff is in possession over the property in dispute by virtue of sale deed No. 3827 dated 13.12.1991. He further argued that trial Court has rightly observed that C.R. No. 5219 of 2010 2 defendants are alleging that they had purchased the property subsequent to the plaintiffs in the year 2007. He further points out that findings of the trial Court on the question of possession has not been disturbed by the Appellate Court, hence, after 2 years order of the trial Court should have not been disturbed/modified. Learned counsel further argued that in the garb of order passed by the Appellate Court now defendants shall dispossess the plaintiffs. 3. Apprehension of learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be without any basis. Having perused the record, I find that finding of learned trial Court on the question of possession that plaintiffs seems to be in possession has not been disturbed by the Appellate Court. Appellate Court has directed to maintain status quo qua the possession as it exists today at the spot. If plaintiffs are in possession, there is no question of dispossession of plaintiffs in the garb of the order passed by first Appellate Court. 4. Petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that findings recorded by both the Courts below shall not come into the way of trial Court while deciding the suit on merits. Trial Court is requested to decide the suit in accordance with law at the earliest without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the party. (ALOK SINGH) 19.08.2010 JUDGE reena