GURDEV SINGH Vs. NIRMAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (ORAL) Defendants-petitioners have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 15.10.2008 passed by Addl. Civil Judge, Phagwara as well as order dated 3.11.2009 passed by District Judge, Kapurthala whereby application moved by the plaintiffrespondent under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was allowed directing the parties to maintain status quo over the property mentioned in the impugned order. The only apprehension of learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants is that although defendants are in possession as per jamabandi (Annexure P-9), however, while passing the impugned order both the Courts below have recorded finding that plaintiff-respondent is in exclusive possession of the suit property and in the garb of the impugned orders, plaintiff can interfere in the possession of the defendant, this apprehension is misconceived. Findings recorded by the Courts below on the question of possession is for the purpose of deciding the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and are not binding on the Court while deciding the suit at its own merits. Supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ordinarily should not be invoked when both the Courts below have directing the parties to maintain status quo during the pendency of the civil suit. Apex Court in the matter of Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot vs. Baldev Dass, reported in 2004(8) Supreme Court cases 488 has held that in the civil suit parties should be directed to maintain status quo and property in dispute shall be preserved in the present form. Present petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed. Learned trial Court is requested to decide the suit itself preferably within 18 months from the date certified copy of this order is placed before the trial Court.