RSA No. 3710 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3710 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 16, 2010 Gandi Devi ...... Appellant Versus Balwant Ram and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate for the respondents. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Lower Appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby even withdrawing the partial decree which was granted in favour of the appellant. The appellant had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in her possession over the land in dispute. As per her case the land had been allotted to her husband and she was his successor. The respondents took the plea that the suit was not maintainable in view of the bar of Section 102 of the Haryana Co- operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). They also denied that the appellant had become the owner of the land on the ground that her husband had been enrolled (in place of his father) only as a nominee. Even the possession of the appellant was denied. The learned RSA No. 3710 of 2008 2 trial Court upheld the objection regarding the maintainability of the suit and declined to give any finding on the issue of title on the ground that that was pending before the authorities under the Act. However, the learned trial Court granted relief of injunction. In appeal the learned Lower Appellate Court set aside the judgment of the trial court holding that once the trial Court had come to the conclusion that the suit was not maintainable it could not have been granted an injunction. During arguments the controversy between the parties has been considerably reduced. Learned counsel for the respondents has offered that the respondents are willing to give up their plea regarding lack of maintainability and has considered that since the entire evidence is already before the court the matter be remanded back to the trial court to decide the issue of title also viz. issue no.1. Learned counsel for the appellant has no objection. Consequently this appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Courts below is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to decide issue No.1 after considering that the objection regarding maintainability has been specifically waived. Let the learned trial court re-decide this issue finally within a period of three months as far as possible. Parties are directed to appear before the civil Judge(Senior Division), Jagadhri (who may either decide it himself or send it to any other court having jurisdiction on 07.04.2010. The parties shall maintain status quo regarding possession of land till the matter is decided. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) March 16, 2010 JUDGE sunita