B.K. Sharma, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.2.2009 passed by the learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner in Misc. Case No. 9(T)/2007 arising out of Title Suit No. 7(T)/2007. The revision petition is also directed against the order dated 26.6.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner in CR (Misc.) (Civil Appeal) Case No. 1(T)/2009 affirming the said order dated 16.2.2009. By the said impugned orders, the ad-interim injunction earlier granted in favour of the Plaintiff Petitioner has been vacated on the ground that the Plaintiff Petitioner does not have any locus standi to file the suit.

2. The suit has been filed for permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs with the following prayer:

In the premises, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court would be pleased to pass a decree of:

(i) Declaration that the Defendants or any one of them or any their agents/associates have no right to disturb the ownership and peaceful possession of the suit land belonging to the Plaintiff and his other family members either by way of issuing any order/orders or by causing damage to the suit land in any way whatsoever or by any other means whatsoever;

(ii) A perpetual and permanent injunction in terms of prayer (i) above ;

(iii) To pass interim orders in terms of the said prayer ;

(iv) And/or to pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper And for this act of kindness the humble Plaintiff as in duty bound shall ever pray.

3. Along with the suit the Plaintiff Petitioner also filed Misc. Case No. 9(T)/2007 praying for ad-interim injunction against the Respondent-Defendants restraining them from interfering with or in any way disturbing the possession and/or ownership of the Plaintiff and his family over the suit land. On the basis of the prayer so made, the learned trial court i.e. the Assistant to Deputy Commissioner was inclined to pass an ad-interim order of injunction as was prayed for.

4. After filing the show cause etc., the learned trial court by its order dated 16.2.2009 (Annexure-E) having vacated the ad-interim injunction order on the ground of the Plaintiff Petitioner having had no locus standi to file the suit, the Plaintiff Petitioner preferred the aforementioned appeal i.e. CR (Misc.) (Civil Appl) Cas No. 1(T)/2009. The appeal also having been dismissed by order dated 26/6/2009, the Plaintiff Petitioner has filed the instant revision petition assailing the legality and/or validity of both the orders.

5. While entertaining the revision petition, by order dated 7.8.2009, it was provided that both the parties to the suit would maintain status quo in respect of the suit land as was existing on 19.6.2009. However, by order dated 22.4.2010 passed in Misc. Case No. 47(SH)/2010, the said interim order was modified by ordering that the parties to the suit shall maintain status quo in respect of the suit land as on 7.8.2009 and not 19.6.2009. Be it stated here that alleging violation of the said order dated 7.8.2009, the Plaintiff Petitioner has filed a contempt petition being COP (C) No. 19(SH)/2009.

6. ...I have heard Mr. S. Jindal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondents. I have also heard Mr. K.S. Kynjing, learned senior counsel appearing for the impleaded Petitioner No. 2. I have also gone through the entire materials on record.

7. In the suit, the Plaintiff Petitioner has made the following statements in paragraph 1 & 2 of the plaint:

1. That the Plaintiff has been a member of Hindu undivided family consisting of his father Shri J.N. Bawri and 2 brothers viz. Shri Vijaye Bawri and Shri Pawan Bawri. The Plaintiff's uncle (L) Nagarmal Bawri has been also a Hindu undivided family consisting of self and his son Shri Binod Kumar Bawri. But the said HU Fs purchased a piece of private land in 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ' said land' or ' suit land') known as ' Lumbawri' situated at Barapan