JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, J. Present petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against order dated 20.11.2014 passed in CMA No. 19/14 of 2014 whereby learned Additional District Judge Ghumarwin District Bilaspur affirmed order passed by learned Trial Court on dated 2.3.2013 in CMA No. 430/6 of 2012 title Narain Dass vs. Tulsi Ram and another. Brief facts of the case 2. Narain Dass plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants namely Tulsi Ram and Punnu Ram from interfering in any manner whatsoever over suit land comprised in Khata No. 90 min Khatauni No. 99 Khasra No. 328 measuring 00-13-00 bighas situated in village Bala, Pargana Gehrwin Tehsil Jhandutta District Bilaspur H.P. In alternative decree for possession by way of demolition of construction if raised during pendency of civil suit also sought. It is pleaded that defendants are strangers to suit land and they have no right title or interest in suit land in any manner. It is pleaded that on 23.9.2014 defendants entered into the suit land and dig out some portion of suit land. It is pleaded that plaintiff objected but defendants threatened that they would raise construction forcibly over suit land and would occupy portion of suit land. It is pleaded that defendants also threatened that they would dispossess the plaintiff from suit land and also threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences. During pendency of suit plaintiff also filed application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ad-interim injunction till disposal of civil suit. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of defendants pleaded therein that suit is not maintainable in present form and plaintiff has no cause of action to file present suit. It is pleaded that suit has not been valued properly for purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction and further pleaded that suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. It is pleaded that without impleading other co-owners effective decree could not be passed. It is pleaded that plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his act, conduct, commissions and omissions. It is pleaded that plaintiff intends to grab the land of defendants which is adjacent to suit land under the garb of present civil suit. It is denied that defendants threatened to raise construction over suit land. It is pleaded that plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his act, conduct, commissions and omissions. It is pleaded that plaintiff intends to grab the land of defendants which is adjacent to suit land under the garb of present civil suit. It is denied that defendants threatened to raise construction over suit land. It is pleaded that defendants are not raising any construction in any manner over suit land. It is pleaded that no cause of action accrued to plaintiff on 23.9.2012 and prayer for dismissal of suit sought. 4. Plaintiff filed replication and re-asserted the allegations mentioned in plaint. Defendants also filed response to application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and prayer for dismissal of application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC sought. 5. During pendency of suit defendants also filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of written statement pleaded therein that defendants filed earlier written statement but learned Advocate engaged by them obtained their signatures in earlier written statement without explaining the contents of earlier written statement to defendants. It is pleaded in proposed amended written statement that defendants are in settled possession of suit land and their houses and cowsheds are also situated in suit land. It is pleaded that suit land was earlier recorded jointly since the time of ancestors of parties and now same has been recorded in separate possession of plaintiff illegally. 6. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-petitioner and Court also perused the entire record carefully. 7. Following points arise for determination in this petition:- 1. Whether petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition? 2. Relief. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons 8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that as per demarcation report dated 11.6.2013 conducted by retired Naib Tehsildar Khasra No. 328 is in settled possession of Tulsi Ram son of Kharku by way of cattle shed and sehan and impugned orders of learned Trial Court and learned first Appellate Court warrant modification is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused jamabandi for the year 2007- 08 placed on record relating to suit land. Court has carefully perused jamabandi for the year 2007- 08 placed on record relating to suit land. As per jamabandi for the year 2007-2008 Khasra No. 328 is owned by Narain Dass, Raghu Ram, Nikku Ram sons of Bassi son of Fhihju to the extent of 1/3rd share and owned by Mahanta, Longu sons of Fhihju son of Makodu to the extent of 2/3rd shares. Nature of suit land has been shown as Banjar Kadeem (Barren land) to the extent of 00- 08-00 and shown as cattle shed to the extent of 00-05-00. It is prima facie proved on record that defendants have also filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for proposed amendment in written statement. In proposed amendment defendants have pleaded in positive manner their settled possession over suit land. Defendants have also placed on record demarcation report dated 11.6.2013 conducted by retired Naib Tehsildar Sunder Lal and there is recital in demarcation report placed on record that cattle shed and Sehan of Tulsi son of Kharkoo are situated in suit land i.e. Khasra No. 328. 9. It is proved on record that application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is listed for consideration before learned Trial Court and learned Trial Court has not disposed of application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC in civil suit. In present case both parties have claimed settled possession over suit land comprised in Khasra No. 328. It is well settled law that when both parties claim possession in suit land then order of status quo relating to possession should be passed during pendency of civil suit. In view of the fact that both parties are claiming settled possession over suit land it is expedient in the ends of justice to direct both the parties to maintain status quo as of today qua possession and nature over suit land till disposal of civil suit. Issue of possession is complicated issue of fact and complicated issue of fact will be decided by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunities to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case during trial of case. It is well settled law that at the time of disposal of application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC Court has to observe triplicate test of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. It is well settled law that at the time of disposal of application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC Court has to observe triplicate test of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Complicated questions of right, title, interest of parties are yet to be decided in civil suit after giving opportunities to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-petitioner that defendants have filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC wherein defendants have pleaded possession over suit land comprised in Khasra No. 328 but application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is still pending before learned Trial Court and at this stage same cannot be looked into is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Co-defendant No.1 placed on record copy of demarcation dated 11.6.2013 conducted by retired Naib Tehsilder Sunder Lal and in demarcation report Naib Tehsildar has specifically mentioned that cattle shed and Sehan of Tulsi Ram son of Kharkoo Ram are situated in portion of Khasra No. 328. Demarcation report will be proved in due course of time after giving due opportunities to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. See AIR 2001 Orissa 146 title M/s Paradip Port Trust vs. Managing Director IDCO Bhubaneswar. See AIR 2015 SC 826 title M/s Transport Corporation of India Ltd. vs. M/s Ganesh Polytex Ltd. See AIR 1994 SC 1837 title Satyavrata Biswas vs. Kalyan Kumar Kisth. See AIR 2005 SC 104 title Maharwall Khewaji Trust Faridkot vs. Baldev Dass. In view of above stated facts point No. 1 is answered in affirmative. Point No.2 (Relief) 11. In view of findings on point No. 1 above petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India is allowed and orders of learned Trial Court and learned first Appellate Court are modified to the extent only that both parties will maintain status quo as of today qua nature and possession of suit land comprised in Khata No. 90 min, Khatauni No.99, Khasra Nos. 328 measuring 00-13-00 situated in village Bala Tehsil Jhandutta District Bilaspur H.P. till the disposal of civil suit. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Files of learned Trial Court and learned first Appellate Court be sent back forthwith along with certified copy of order. 328 measuring 00-13-00 situated in village Bala Tehsil Jhandutta District Bilaspur H.P. till the disposal of civil suit. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Files of learned Trial Court and learned first Appellate Court be sent back forthwith along with certified copy of order. Parties are directed to appear before learned Trial Court on 11.7.2016. Observations will not effect merits of civil suit in any manner and will be strictly confined for disposal of present petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India. CMPMO No. 204 of 2015 stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application (s) if any also stands disposed of.