2025:HHC:29632 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 378 of 2019 Decided on : 01.09.2025 Santokh Ram and others …Petitioners Versus Rajesh Kaul and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate, for petitioners No.2 to 6 and applicant/ proposed legal representatives of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 is stated to be expired. For the respondents : Mr. Ajay Singh Kashyap, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) CMP.M No. 823 of 2021 By way of this application, a prayer has been made to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased petitioner No.1. 2. In light of the averments made in the application, 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:29632 the same is allowed. The proposed legal representatives of deceased petitioner, whose details are given in the amended memo of parties, are impleaded as petitioners No.1(a) to 1(f). Application stands disposed of accordingly. CMPMO No. 378 of 2019 3. Notice. Mr. Tarun Brakta, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of petitioners No.1(a) to 1(f). On his instruction, Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel, has put in appearance on behalf of said petitioner. 4. By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 29.06.2019, passed by learned Appellate Court, under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’). 5. Perusal of the record demonstrates that learned Trial Court passed an order on 03.08.2016, in the application filed by the plaintiffs along-with the suit under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, in terms whereof, parties were directed to maintain status quo. Thereafter, the defendants filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 of the CPC, which was dismissed in terms of Annexure P-7, by the learned Civil 3 2025:HHC:29632 Judge-II, Dharamshala, on 27.10.2018. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants preferred the Appeal and in terms of the impugned order, learned Appellate Court vacated the status quo order and directed the learned Trial Court to re-consider as to whether an injunction is to be issued or not. 6. In light of the said order passed by the learned Appellate Court, this Court is of the considered view that taking into consideration the fact that this is an old matter, the interest of justice would be served by ordering that let the learned Civil Court do the needful in terms of the judgment passed by learned Appellate Court, as expeditiously as possible, without being influenced by any observation made by the learned Appellate Court in the impugned order. 7. Ordered accordingly. The petition is disposed of with the direction that let the Trial Court pass an appropriate order on the application filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, as expeditiously as possible, but on the merits of the case, uninfluenced by any observation made by learned Appellate Court in the impugned order. Till the said order is not passed, let parties maintain status quo qua the suit property as 4 2025:HHC:29632 it exists today. 8. The Petition is disposed of, in above-said terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 01, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)