A.P.CHOWDHRI, J. - (1.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this revision are that one Shaukat Ali filed Civil Suit No. 144 on 17. 4. 1993 inter-alia against Punjab Wakf Board, etc. seeking perpetual injunction that the plaintiff be not forcibly dispossessed from the land described in detail in the plaint. Alongwith the suit, he made a miscellaneous application seeking an injunction against the Punjab Wakf Board from putting the land in question to auction till the decision of the suit. Vide order dated 21. 3. 1994 the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Kharar, dismissed the aforesaid miscellaneous application with a finding that no prima facie case was made out by the plaintiff. The petitioner has assailed that order by filing this revision petition. When the matter came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge on July 7, 1994, the revision petition was admitted and dispossession of the petitioner was stayed.
(2.) THE case was taken up for hearing today. Mr. Gupta learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 has taken a preliminary objection that the present revision petition is not maintainable as admittedly an appeal lay against the impugned order and the remedy or the appeal has not been exhausted. Mr. Ghai does not dispute the factual position that no appeal was preferred against the impugned order. He sought to contend that the order in question was not appealable as it was an order passed under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I am afraid that the contention is not acceptable. In the opening part of the impugned order, it is clear that the order seeks to dispose of an application moved by the petitioner for restraining defendant No. 1 from putting to auction the suit property during the pendency of the suit. Accordingly, this revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the plaintiff to prefer an appeal before the proper forum if so advised, according to law. Mr. Ghai submitted that in view of the pendency of the revision petition, the period for filing the appeal has expired and, therefore, a direction be given to the lower Appellate Court to entertain the appeal without raising question of limitation. This prayer cannot obviously be accepted and if a question of limitation is raised, the same would be decided according to law. It will be for the Court concerned to take into consideration the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act with regard to exclusion of the period during which a party has been bonafide prosecuting his claim in a wrong forum. As this Court, at the time of admission, granted stay and there are conflicting stands whether property is in possession of the petitioner or of any other person, I would refrain from recording any finding on that matter. In all fairness, the parties shall maintain status-quo with regard to possession as it existed at the time of passing of the impugned order. Appropriate order would be passed by the lower Appellate Court in the event of appeal being filed. The petition is disposed of in these terms.
(3.) IF in the light of the observations made in this order, the petitioner does not file any appeal within a period of 30 days from today, status quo order given above shall stand exhausted.;