IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.557 of 2019 Decided on 14th August, 2025 Sh. Vineet Thakur and another …Petitioners Versus Sh. Gurdeep Singh and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Shashwat Dadwal, Advocate, vice Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sunny Modgil, Advocate, is present in person through video conference. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:- “It is therefore respectfully prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order/judgment Annexure P-6 dated 21- 08-2019 passed by Ld. Additional Distt Judge-I, Una, Distt Una H.P. in Civil Misc. Appeal No 30/2018 in case titled Sh Gurdeep Singh Vs. Sh. Vineet Thakur & Others, setting aside the well- reasoned & justified order of Ld. trial Court dated 18-07-2018, may kindly be set-aside being illegal, arbitrary & without any pleadings and iota of evidence & documents on record, as also keeping in view the facts & circumstances of the case & in the interest of justice, with heavy & exemplary costs in favour of the petitioners, who has been unnecessarily dragged into the avoidable litigation, with the further directions to the non- 2 applicant/respondent to maintain status quo qua the nature of suit & possession of the suit land till the decision of the suit.” 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the interim granted in favour of the petitioners in an application filed by the petitioners under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code by the learned Trial Court has been interfered with by learned Appellate Court. The impugned order is dated 21.08.2019. 3. When this case listed before Court on 21.10.2019, the following order was passed:- “Notice to the respondents returnable for 10.12.2019. Steps for service be taken within one week. List on 10.12.2019. CMP No.11259 of 2019 Notice in the above terms. In the meanwhile, parties are directed to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit land.” 4. Thus, it is evident that there is a status quo, which the parties are maintaining qua the nature and possession of the suit land for the last six years. Thereafter, in terms of order dated 03.03.2020, the record of the case was also called for by the Court. 3 5. Taking into consideration the fact that there is a status quo order existing between the parties, which the parties are abiding to for the last six years, this Court is of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice in case this petition is disposed of by observing that a serious endeavor be made by learned Trial Court to dispose of the Civil Suit itself as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 30.04.2026 as the case is stated to be at the stage of recording the evidence of the plaintiff. 6. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of without adjudication of the issue on merit, but by observing that let the parties maintain status quo qua the nature of the suit land, till the disposal of the Civil Suit. Learned Trial is called upon to make an endeavor to decide the suit on or before 30.04.2026. Parties through counsel are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 01.09.2025. Not more than three opportunities shall be granted to either of the parties to lead evidence. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 14, 2025 (Vinod)