JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of the parties, this appeal is being decided at the admission stage itself. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 26-10-2007 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the temporary injunction application filed by the appellants, the appellants have approached this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction whereby the appellants had sought that the registered sale deed dated 12-9-2007 executed between defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and defendant No. 1 should be declared as ineffective and the said sale deed should be cancelled. Moreover, the possession of the land should be handed back to the plaintiffs. Despite the fact that there was a specific prayer for handing back the possession of the land, the learned Judge has not directed the parties to maintain status quo. Thus, the learned Judge has not prevented the respondents from alienating the property to a third party. According to the learned counsel, in case third party's rights are created, during the pendency of the suit, it would lead to further complications and would give rise to further litigation. 4. On the other hand, Mr. J. P. Goyal, the learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that the prayer for status quo was not made by the appellants before the Court. Moreover, the prayer was that the respondents be restrained from interfering with the possession of the appellants. Since the respondents have the possession, in fact, the application for temporary injunction has become infructuous. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. It is, indeed, a settled principle that the Courts do not sit as a mute witness to a proceeding. The Court has the power to mould a relief, even if the said relief has not been prayed for. In the present case, the appellants had sought the ultimate relief that not only the registered sale deed be declared ineffective, but most importantly, the land in dispute should be returned back to them. Thus, in order to protect the interest of the parties, the learned trial Court should have directed that the parties should maintain status quo. For, such an order would have prevented the emergence of third party rights. It would also prevent the emergence of future litigation. Thus, in order to protect the interest of the parties, the learned trial Court should have directed that the parties should maintain status quo. For, such an order would have prevented the emergence of third party rights. It would also prevent the emergence of future litigation. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in quashing and setting aside the order dated 26-10-2007 and in directing the parties to maintain status quo as of today during the pendency of the civil suit before the trial Court. 7. With these observations, this appeal is, hereby, allowed.Appeal allowed. *******