G.C.GARG, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated June 8, 1993 passed in appeal on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) JASBIR Singh and Subeg Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of agricultural land of Khata No. 30/49, Killa No. 45/1 (8-0) situated in village Rattan Khera, Tehsil Sunam restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession. Along with the suit, an application for grant of temporary injunction was also filed. This application was disposed by the trial Court by order dated December 8,1992 whereby ex parte order of status quo regarding possession granted earlier on October 20, 1992 was vacated. Appeal against the said order was, however, allowed, by the learned District Judge, Sangrur by order dated June 8, 1993. It is how the present revision came to be filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the plaintiffs are neither the owners nor co-sharers in the land in dispute. They are not even in possession thereof. Admittedly, the petitioners were recorded in possession of the land in dispute right from 1960 till 1985 when entries in the revenue record were changed unauthorisedly in favour of the plaintiffs. Nothing has been brought on record even prima facie to show as to how these entries came to be changed in favour of the plaintiffs. On this basis, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entries being unauthorised and illegal, learned District Judge erred in law in allowing the appeal and restraining the defendant-petitioners from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel further submitted that during the pendency of this revision, entries in the revenue record have been corrected and certified copy of the corrected entry has been shown to me during the course of arguments. The correct entries are in favour of the petitioners, both in the columns of ownership as also in the column of possession/cultivation. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that this Court ought not interfere with the discretionary order passed by the learned District Judge in view of the judgment in The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. , Balanagar, Hyderabad and Anr. v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, A. I. R. 1973 S. C. 76. Learned counsel for the respondents, however could not show even prima facie or refer to any document of title or any evidence on the basis of which the entries in the revenue record which were previously in favour of the defendant-petitioners came to be corrected in favour of the plaintiff-respondents.
(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter and am of the view that ends of justice would be met if the parties, who are claiming their respective possession over the land in dispute, are ordered to maintain status quo as to possession during the pendency of the suit. This is particularly so when the revenue record in favour of the petitioners has been corrected during the pendency of the revision petition and the plaintiffs have not been able to show as to how the entries came to be incorporated in their favour in 1986. Even otherwise, by ordering status quo to be maintained, the parties will not suffer any loss and the balance of convenience will also be in favour of ordering the status quo till the disposal of the suit.;