The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to maintain status quo during property disputes and the allocation of related cases to one court for decision.

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral) - This order shall dispose of two Civil Revisions being No. 3855 of 2000 and No. 381 of 2001, as both the revision petitions relate to a controversy with regard to same property.

2. The facts which emerge from the record, and not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties, show that Sardara Ram and Ram Sarup claimed themselves to be owners of 4 acres, 6 kanals and 12 marlas of land. On the basis of aforesaid claim of ownership, they mortgaged the land in question with Primary Land Mortgage Bank (PLMB), Narnaul on October 08, 1982, for a sum of Rs. 9,000/-. Since redemption of the said land was not made by Sardara Ram and Ram Sarup, the bank put the aforesaid property to auction in execution of a decree. One Jagdish, son of Sohan Lal (petitioner in C.R. No. 381 of 2001), was the highest bidder in the aforesaid auction. The property was sold in execution proceedings for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. It was stipulated at that point of time that the objections to the auction were to be filed within a period of 30 days. It was claimed by Jagdish that no such objections were filed by anybody and consequently, sale certificate with regard to purchase of land was issued in his favour. Jagdish also claimed that possession of the suit property had been delivered to him. Later on, Saradara Ram and Ram Sarup filed objections against the aforesaid auction proceedings. The aforesaid objections were dismissed by the Executing Court on August 13, 1998, Sardara Ram filed a Civil Revision No. 4457 of 1990, before this Court. The aforesaid Civil Revision was disposed of vide order dated July 24, 2000. The order of the Executing Court dated August 13, 1998 was set aside. The Executing Court was directed to decide the objection petition filed by Sardara Singh afresh on the merits of the controversy. It was also observed by this Court, while passing the afore said order dated July 24, 2000 that Executing Court would also look into the desirability of satisfying the claim of the auction purchaser by paying him a higher amount. In pursuance of the directions dated July 24, 2000, the Executing Court directed the objector Sardara Ram to pay an additional amount of Rs. 20,000/-, to the auction purchaser Jagdish. It was further directed that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 20,000/- is to be kept in trust by the auction-purchaser till the final disposal of the objection petition. After passing the aforesaid directions, the Executing Court further directed Jagdish, auction purchaser to hand over the possession of the land in question to Sardara Ram within two months of passing the aforesaid order. Jagdish has, consequently, challenged the order dated December 15, 2000, before this Court, through Civil Revision No. 381 of 2001.

3. A further perusal of the record shows that one Rajesh Kumar, petitioner in Civil Revision No. 3855 of 2000, claims to have purchased the property in court auction, on July 16, 1990. The aforesaid auction, apparently, was conducted for executing the decree passed against one Biru Ram, father of Sardara Ram and Ram Sarup. Rajesh Kumar also claimed that a sale certificate was issued in his favour on May 13, 1991. He further claims that possession of the suit land was delivered to him on April 05, 1993.

4. Apprehending that he would be dispossessed from the suit land, Rajesh Kumar filed an earlier civil suit for permanent injunction against Ram Sarup, Roshan Lal, Sardar Singh etc., sons of Biru Ram. The said suit was decreed on September 27, 1997. Later on, because of the fact that Jagdish, who claimed himself to be the auction purchaser of the entire land, in the decree against Sardara Ram and Ram Sarup through auction proceedings dated June 24, 1994, wanted to interfere in the possession of Rajesh Kumar, he filed the present suit for permanent injunction against the aforesaid Jagdish and others. Along with the aforesaid suit, Rajesh Kumar also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, claimi