TARUN AGARWALA,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Bhupesh Kandpal, the learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner and Sri B.P. Nautiyal, the learned counsel for the plain ­tiff/appellant/opposite party, who has filed the Vakalatnama today which is taken on record.
(2.) THIS Court had summoned the record of the lower appellate court, which has been duly received. The Court has perused the record. It transpires that the plaintiff/appel ­lant/opposite party filed a suit for perma ­nent injunction claiming that a lease deed was executed by the owner of the property in his favour. The defendant/petitioner re ­sisted the suit and also filed a cross suit claiming that the original owner had sold out a open piece of land in his favour prior to the execution of the lease deed. The suit of the plaintiff/appellant/opposite party as well as the cross suit of the defendant was dismissed by the trial court. The trial court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove his title over the land in question. The trial court further held that the defendant had also failed to prove his title over the open piece of land, but found that the defend ­ant was in possession.
(3.) THE plaintiff preferred an appeal and also filed an application for grant of a tem ­porary injunction. Since a caveat was filed by the defendant, the Incharge District Judge, by an order dated 16.12.2010, di ­rected the appeal as well as the injunction application to be heard on 3rd February, 2011 and, with the consent of the parties, directed the parties to maintain the status-;