PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Before :- Sat Pal, J.
CR No. 4810 of 1997. D/d. 23.3.1998.
Dalip Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Chhotta Singh - Respondent
For the Petitioner :- Mr. A.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.P.S. Mann, Advocate. 
ORDER
Sat Pal, J. - In this case the petitioner-defendant had earlier filed a suit in the year 1990 claiming the relief for declaration that he was owner in possession and it was further prayed in that suit that the plaintiff be restrained from interfering in the possession of the petitioner-defendant. That suit was partly dismissed and partly decreed. The prayer that the petitioner-defendant was owner in possession by way of adverse possession was rejected but the other prayer that the petitioner-defendant should not be dispossessed except by due process of law was allowed vide judgment dated 8.9.1992. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 8.9.1992 the petitioner- defendant filed an appeal before the learned lower appellate Court but the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide judgment dated 25.7.1995.2. Thereafter respondent Chhota Singh filed a suit for possession of the land in dispute and the said suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on 11.3.97. Against the said judgment dated 11.3.1997 petitioner-defendant has filed an appeal which is pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge, Mansa. In this appeal, the petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for interim injunction and the prayer for interim injunction was declined by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 30.9.1997 which has been impugned in this petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the judgments dated 8.9.1992 and 25.7.1995 passed in the earlier litigation and the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is not legally sustainable. From the order dated 8.9.1992 it is clear that though the prayer of the petitioner that he was owner in possession on account of adverse possession was rejected by the learned trial court but at the same time the learned trial court held that petitioner Dalip Singh will not be dispossessed forcibly except by due process of law. From this it is clear that the possession is still with petitioner Dalip Singh. The observation made in the impugned order that in the earlier litigation, Chhota Singh had succeeded is, therefore, contrary to record. In view of these facts, it would be in the interest of justice that the status quo with regard to possession is granted till the decision of the appeal which is pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Mansa.
3. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.9.1997 is set aside and I direct the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession during the pendency of the appeal which is pending before the Court of Additional District Judge, Mansa.
4. Since this order is being passed without hearing the respondent, the respondent, if aggrieved, by this order, shall be at liberty to approach this court for recalling/modifying the order passed today. With this order the petition stands disposed of.
Petition allowed.
COMMENTS