JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J —Heard. 2. The subject matter of the dispute in the present lis are shops constructed over the suit land measuring 0-00-60 HM, which is part of the entire land measuring 00-02-00 HM entered in Khata No.35 Min, Khatauni No.49, Khasra No.128, situated in Main Bazar Rehan, District Kangra. According to the appellant-plaintiff, the shops have been purchased by him vide registered sale deed bearing No.1136 dated 5.10.1999 and 1058 dated 15.9.2000. The defendant, who allegedly started causing interference in the suit property, has been sought to be restrained permanently from raising any sort of construction by way of making encroachment over the suit property and causing interference in his peaceful possession. 3. The claim of the defendant-respondent however is that the petitioner- plaintiff has only purchased two shops situated in the ground floor, whereas the shops on the first floor have been purchased by him. Learned trial Court in the interim had restrained the defendant from entering into the shops on the first floor and using the same during the pendency of the suit. The learned Lower Appellate Court has however, quashed the interim order Annexure P-5 passed by learned trial Judge and dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC. 4. On having gone through the record available at this stage and taking into consideration the rival submissions, from the registered sale deed pressed in service by the petitioner-plaintiff qua he having purchased the shops situated in the ground floor of the building, nothing can be made out at this stage that the sale of the said shops is not alongwith lintel. At this stage, it cannot also be said that such sale being alongwith lintel, the respondentdefendant has no legal right in the shops, which are in existence over first floor of the building. Therefore, the appropriate course available in the present lis was to have directed the parties on both sides to maintain status quo qua possession of the shops in existence in the ground floor of the building as well as on its first floor with further direction to them not to alter or change the building in any manner whatsoever including by making addition, alteration or further construction thereon. The impugned order as such is not legally and factually sustainable. The impugned order as such is not legally and factually sustainable. In the event of the same is allowed to continue, it may result in multiplicity of litigation and in other legal implications more serious in nature. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. 5. Consequently, in the interim, the parties on both sides are directed to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the shops situated in ground floor and first floor of the building viz the subject matter of dispute in the present lis. They are also directed not to alter, carry out any repair, make any addition or raise further construction on the existing structure in any manner whatsoever during the pendency of the suit in the learned trial court. Being so, this petition is partly allowed and stands disposed of accordingly. 6. An authenticated copy of the judgment be sent to learned trial Court for compliance.