' SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.---The petitioners filed a suit for specific performance qua the suit-land claiming that they are in possession and cultivating the same pursuant to agreement to sell dated 30-3-2004. Thereafter the respondents Nos.2 to 7 executed a registered sale-deed in favour of respondent No, 1 on 15-10-2005. The petitioners not only sought specific performance of the agreement dated 30-3-2004 and cancellation of the said sale-deed dated 15-10-2006 but also prayed through an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. That they be not dispossessed. The respondents filed written statement denying the averments and claimed possession of the suit-land pursuant to the execution of the sale-deed. They also filed reply to the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. And prayed for its dismissal. The trial Court partially allowed the application of petitioners, qua possession, but declined the rest of the prayers contained therein. The respondent No,1 challenged the said order by filing appeal, it was allowed and the order of the trial Court was set aside. Hence the present petition by the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that his agreement was earlier in time, the sale-deed, therefore, could not affect his rights, consideration duly passed to the respondents, the order of the trial Court is based upon the revenue documents and, therefore, was wrongly set aside by the lower appellate Court without any cogent or tangible reason.
3. Contrarily, the learned counsel for the respondent No,1 submitted that he is in possession of the suit-land pursuant to the execution of the sale-deed, therefore, he has a right to cultivate the property in dispute, the order of lower appellate Court is in complete harmony and consonance with record, the petitioner merely relied upon an agreement whereas the respondent No,1 has a registered document in his favour, therefore, the order of injunction was rightly vacated.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal argued that the lower appellate Court, in fact, finally adjudicated the suit, transgressing all ingredients of Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. And made observations, which are likely to prejudice his cause.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that while disposing of the appeal the lower appellate Court has stated that observation made in the judgment are tentative and would not cause prejudice to the petitioner's cause on merits.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and, perused both the orders passed by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court.
7. As far as the observations made by the lower appellate Court are concerned, although the apprehension of the petitioner has been adequately redressed, it is clarified, again, that the trial Court shall not in any manner be influenced by any observation made in the impugned judgment.
8. The core dispute inter se the parties now is, as to who is in possession of the disputed land. The findings of both the Courts in this context are at variance, therefore, the matter cannot be adjudicated and determined without deeper appraisal of evidence. Thus the appointment of a Local Commission could have resolved the issue to some extent, the idea was considered by both the counsel but thereafter they agreed that as respondent No,1 has made and application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Seeking rejection of plaint, therefore, it would be appropriate to await its outcome.
9. In these circumstances the learned counsel for the parties jointly concur and agree that a direction be issued to the trial Court to decide this application within one month of today. It is also agreed that in the meanwhile, both the parties shall maintain status qua and whosoever is in possession of the suit-land, shall be entitled to its use and benefit, and shall not be dispossessed, otherwise, than in due course of law. Order accordingly.