JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the orders regarding maintenance of status quo in respect of possession passed by the courts below. They have consequently filed this revision petition to challenge these orders. A few facts may be noticed.
(2.) ON January 6, 1981, Jai Narain, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-respondents Nos. 1 to 3, initiated proceedings Under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Amar Chand and his son Rajinder. On August 12, 1981, the possession of the premises was entrusted to the Receiver. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rewari, ultimately, found that Amar Chand etc. had wrongly occupied the premises in dispute in the year 1980 and started making alterations therein. However, since he was not competent to go into the question of title and the possession of Amar Chand etc. was proved, he held that they were entitled to restoration of possession. Accordingly, he disposed of the proceedings vide order dated May 6, 1985. This order was challenged through a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge. This petition was dismissed on May 27, 1986. In the meantime, the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit on May 8, 1985 for declaration and permanent injunction against Amar Chand and his sons, Rajinder. Along with the suit, they filed an application for the grant of temporary injunction. The learned trial Court initially granted a temporary injunction and finally affirmed it vide its order dated March 2, 1989. The parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the possession of the suit property till final decision of the case. This order was challenged in appeal by the defendants. The learned Additional District Judge affirmed the order passed by the trial Court. It appears that Amar Chand died during the pendency of the case. Consequently, Rajinder and his two brothers (sons of Amar Chand) have filed this revision petition.
(3.) MR . Gopi Chand, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the civil court was not competent to grant an injunction during the pendency of proceedings Under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that it has erred in preventing the petitioners from getting possession of the premises in dispute in pursuance to an order passed by the competent authority. On the other hand, Mr. S. K. Mittal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents has contended that the injunction has been rightly granted by the courts below.;