A status quo order does not necessarily stay the operation of a civil court decree unless it specifically states so.

Sarojnei Saksena, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this revision against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, Annexure P-1, whereby he has set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Malout, on June 30, 1993, Annexure P-3.

2. A short backdrop of the case is that SHO Police Station Sadar Malout sent a Kalendra to the SDM Muktsar under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the Code) regarding the disputed land situate in village Sarawan. On receiving this Kalendra the SDM passed a preliminary order under section 145(1) of the Code and directed the parties to appear and to submit written statements of their respective claims in regard to the fact of actual possession of the disputed land. Thereafter vide order dated May 6, 1991, receiver was appointed under Section 146 of the Code. In the meantime, a petition under Section 482 of the Code was filed in this Court against the said proceedings. This Court only stayed the passing of the final order. Thereafter the proceedings were being conducted before the SDM. The petitioner also filed a civil suit for declaration praying that he be declared owner of the suit land and also pleaded that he is in possession of the suit land. During the pendency of this civil suit, status quo order was passed. This civil suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner on April 7, 1993.

3. Thereafter the petitioner filed a petition before this Court to vacate the stay order. Such an order was passed on April 29, 1993.

4. The petitioner filed copy of the judgment dated April 7, 1993, of the Civil Court before the SDM. At that time the respondents also filed few affidavits and alleged that they are in possession of the suit property. However, no evidence was adduced by either side to prove their possession before the SDM. The respondents also filed copy of the stay order granted by the District Court in appeal, which they filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in favour of the petitioner.

5. The learned SDM considered all these documents and in pursuance of the judgment given by the Civil Court, he held that petitioner-Kashmir Singh is in possession of the disputed property and closed the proceedings. He also directed the receiver to hand over possession of the disputed land to petitioner-Kashmir Singh. In pursuance of the SDMs order, possession of the disputed land was handed over to petitioner-Kashmir Singh by the receiver on July 13, 1993 Annexure P-8.

6. The respondents filed revision in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, who allowed the revision, set aside the order of the SDM and remitted the case back to him to hold further proceedings.

7. The petitioners learned counsel submitted that the Civil Court has held that he is in possession of the disputed land. No doubt, that judgment and decree is under appeal and the appellate Court has granted status quo order, but in pursuance of the order of the SDM the receiver has already delivered possession of the disputed land to the petitioner on July 13, 1993. Without considering all these facts, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has vacated the well reasoned order of the SDM Annexure P-3.

8. The respondents learned counsel contends that no doubt the Civil Court has decreed the petitioners civil suit for declaration and has held that the petitioner is in possession of the disputed land, but respondents have filed Civil Appeal against that judgment and decree and the appellate Court has passed status quo order. This order was passed on April 30, 1993. Thereafter the SDM should not have passed the impugned order Annexure P-3 on June 30, 1993, because in view of the status quo order passed by the appellate Court, the finding recorded by the Civil Court that the petitioner is in possession of the disputed land remains stayed. He also pointed out that during the pendency of the civil suit on May 9, 1991, the petitioner filed a petition under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC pr