Vinod K.Sharma, J. - (1.) Present revision petition has been filed against the orders passed by the learned District Judge allowing the application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure ordering the parties to maintain status quo as regards the possession.
(2.) It is not in dispute that the respondents herein are the owners of the property in pursuance to the purchase from Smt. Shanti Bhalla who was owner of the shop in dispute whereas M/s Arora Brothers were the tenants. It was the case of the plaintiff-respondents that after the purchase M/s Arora Brothers had handed back the possession of the shop on receipt of Rs.20,000/-. However, the petitioner herein raised a dispute regarding the possession and on the said application proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated.
(3.) Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate ordered the restoration of the possession to the respondent-plaintiffs and in pursuance to the said order the respondents were, in fact, put in possession of the property in question. However, the petitioner challenged the order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar who accepted the revision and set aside the order. However, while reconsidering the matter learned Sub Divisional Magistrate came to the conclusion that it was the petitioner who was in possession of the property at the time of initiation of proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, was entitled to restoration of possession thereof.;