The court has the discretion to allow mutation entries in the revenue record but can impose restraints on the party to maintain status quo.

1. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.03.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, whereby, the application filed by the respondent under Order 39, Rule 4 CPC has been allowed and the interim order passed by the learned trial court on 03.09.2011 was modified.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent regarding land comprised in Chak No.25 APD, Tehsil Anoopgarh, details whereof were indicated in para 2 of the plaint; along with the suit an application was filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

3. The learned trial court after hearing the parties by order dated 03.09.2011 decided the application by consent of the parties and ordered that they would maintain status quo during the pendency of the suit qua the suit property. However, an application under Order 39, Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC was filed by the respondent, inter alia, with the averment that ad interim order in the temporary injunction application was passed on 05.10.2010 for maintaining status quo, which was confirmed by order dated 03.09.2011. However, relating to the said land, as the sale deed had been executed on 19.07.2010 regarding which now the mutation entry is not being made and, therefore, the order dated 03.09.2011 be varied to the extent that in pursuance of the sale deed dated 19.07.2010 the mutation entries be permitted to be made in the revenue record.

4. The application was vehemently opposed by the appellant by filing reply. It was indicated that the sale deed has been executed in violation of interim order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Anoopgarh in other revenue litigation.

5. The learned trial court after hearing the parties by impugned order dated 30.03.2013 allowed the application and permitted mutation entries in the revenue record based on sale deed dated 19.07.2010. However, the applicant has been restrained from transferring, alienating and selling the disputed land and to maintain status quo.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the order impugned passed by the learned trial court is ex facie against the settled position of law and the spirit of Order 39, Rule 4 CPC. It was further submitted that the conduct of the respondent is such that he should not have been granted the indulgence in this regard, inasmuch as, if such revenue entries are permitted to be made, the same would again be misused and the land would be further transferred leaving the appellant high and dry and the entire purpose of filing the suit would be frustrated.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even before this appeal was filed before this Court on 20.05.2013, in pursuance of the impugned order passed by the trial court the revenue entries have been made on 15.04.2013, copies in this regard have been placed on record.

8. In view of the fact that the order impugned already stands executed whereby the revenue entries have been made in the name of respondent, no case for interference in the order impugned is made out. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the past conduct, it is deemed appropriate to direct that the revenue authorities shall specifically indicate in the Jamabandi relating to the land in dispute that the respondent Mahendra Kumar has been restrained from transferring, alienating and selling the land in question and to maintain status quo at the site. The said endorsement would be made by the revenue authorities as soon as the order passed by this Court is placed before them and would ensure its compliance.

9. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of. The stay application is dismissed.Appeal Disposed of.

*******