LAWS(HPH)-2011-7-20

RATTAN LAL Vs. TULSI RAM

Decided On July 18, 2011
RATTAN LAL Appellant
V/S
TULSI RAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners, who were Plaintiffs, have filed this revision against the order dated 13.5.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin in Civil Appeal No. 28 -14 of 2010 permitting the Respondent to withdraw the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Code of Code of Civil Procedure and setting aside order dated 30.7.2010 passed by the learned trial Court ordering status quo with regard to nature and possession of the suit land till the disposal of the suit.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that in the suit filed by the Petitioners, the Respondent had filed an application being CMA No. 95/6 of 2009 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Code of Code of Civil Procedure . This application was allowed on 30.7.2010 by the learned trial Court and directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the nature of the suit land till the final decision of the main suit. The Respondent filed an appeal against the order dated 30.7.2010. He filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 read with Section 151 Code of Code of Civil Procedure for withdrawal of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Code of Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to the learned Appellate Court for setting aside the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Court No. 1, Ghumarwin whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo. This application was taken up by the learned lower Appellate Court on 13.5.2011, the application was allowed and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn and the order passed by the learned trial Court on 30.7.2010 directing the parties to maintain status quo with respect to nature of the suit land till the disposal of the main suit was also set -aside. The order dated 13.5.2011 has been assailed in the present revision.

(3.) I have gone through the order dated 13.5.2011. The Petitioners No. 1 and 3 on 13.5.2011 were represented by an Advocate before the learned Additional District Judge. The Petitioners No. 2 and 4 were not present in the lower Appellate court and they were already stood exparte.