2025:HHC:30580 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.477 of 2016 Decided on: 08.09.2025 Moti Lal … Petitioner Versus Rattan Chand … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Ms. Vaishali Lakhanpal, Advocate, vice Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has approached this Court feeling aggrieved by the fact that the application filed by the petitioner alongwith the plaint under Order, 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code was dismissed by the learned Trial Court and so was the fate of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 2. A perusal of the record of this case demonstrates that when this case was listed on 12.12.2016, this Court directed the parties to maintain status-quo, qua the nature and possession of the suit land. This order is in force since then and no prayer was made by the respondent in the interregnum, for the recall or modification 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:30580 of this order. 3. In light of this fact, this Court is of the considered view that when the parties are reconciling with this order for the last almost ten years, it would be in the interest of justice in case this petition is disposed of by directing the learned Trial Court to decide the Civil Suit expeditiously, but by ordering the parties to maintain status-quo, qua the nature and possession of the suit land. Ordered accordingly. 4. The petition is disposed of by directing the parties to maintain status-quo, qua the nature and possession of the suit land. Learned Trial Court is called upon to make endeavour to decide the Civil Suit as expeditiously as possible. Learned Trial Court shall ensure that if the suit is at the stage of final hearing, then arguments be heard expeditiously and if is at the stage of recording the evidence of the parties, then none of the parties shall be granted more than three opportunities ordinarily to lead evidence. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 08, 2025 (Rishi)