JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, petitioners have prayed for quashing of order dated 19.07.2017 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. III, Una, in an application filed by the present respondents under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C., which reads as under:- “OR seen. Be registered. Let notice be issued to respondent for 1/9/17 on taking steps if any within 7 days.” 2. The case of the petitioners is that present respondents No. 1 to 3, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining defendant from changing the existing nature and character, as also from ousting the plaintiffs forcibly from joint possession of the suit land situated in Mahal Haroli Pratham, Tehsil Haroli, District Una, H.P., till final partition and in the alternative, for a decree for joint possession with further prayer for a direction to the defendant to restore the suit land in its original position, if the defendant succeeds in ousting the plaintiffs from the joint possession of the suit land. 3. According to the petitioners, they are not defendants in the suit and sole defendant in the suit is State of Himachal Pradesh through Collector and on the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. by the plaintiffs, vide order dated 22.03.2017, the Court of Civil Judge, Court No. III, Una, District Una, in C.M.A. No. 222/16 had directed both the parties to the civil suit to maintain status quo qua the nature, construction, possession over the suit land till the final disposal of the main suit. 4. Thereafter, an application stood filed by the plaintiffs before learned trial Court under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C., in which the petitioners have also been impleaded as party respondents alongwith other respondents in which it stands alleged that the above mentioned order passed by learned trial Court on the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. stood violated inter alia by the petitioners. 5. 5. Contention of the petitioners is that learned trial Court without any due application of mind and without appreciating that present petitioners were not party in the suit in which order to maintain status quo was passed, had issued notices to them which demonstrates that the issuance of notice was done by learned trial Court in a mechanical manner without even bothering to look into the Memo of Parties. 6. Accordingly, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order so passed by learned trial Court in the application so filed under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C. and have also prayed that further such order as may be fit and proper in the facts of the case may be passed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also learned counsel for contesting respondents No. 1 to 3. 8. I have also perused the records appended with the petition, which include copy of the plaint. 9. In the civil suit which has been so instituted by present respondents No. 1 to 3, Memo of Parties is as under:- “1. Jagdish Ram son of Shri Harmander Singh, age 65 years 2. Kushal Singh s/o Mool Raj s/o Tara Singh, age 69 years 3. Harmeek Kumar s/o Achhar Singh s/o Sidhu r/o Village Haroli, Tehsil Haroli, District Una, HP - Plaintiffs Versus State of Himachal Pradesh through Collector, Una, District Una, HP. - Defendants” 10. Thus, it is evident from perusal of Memo of Parties that present petitioners are not defendants in the said suit. It is settled principle of law that dominus litus is the prerogative of the plaintiffs. In the suit so filed, plaintiffs in their wisdom impleadeed only State of Himachal Pradesh through Collector as defendant and a decree has also been sought against the said defendant. 11. In the application so filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., learned trial Court had directed “the parties to the suit to maintain status quo qua the nature, construction, possession over the suit land till the final disposal of the main suit”. 12. 11. In the application so filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., learned trial Court had directed “the parties to the suit to maintain status quo qua the nature, construction, possession over the suit land till the final disposal of the main suit”. 12. Taking into consideration the fact that the present petitioners were not party before learned trial Court, it is not understood as to how they could have been impleaded as respondents in an application so filed under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C. and that too in a suit in which it was the State of Himachal Pradesh, which was the defendant. Further, as the direction passed by learned trial Court to maintain status quo was qua the parties to the suit, therefore, it was incumbent upon learned Court below that even before issuing notice in an application so filed under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C., it ought to have been ascertained that violation of the Court order was being alleged against whom. This Court is not remotely suggesting that functionaries of the State though not party by name in the civil suit could not have been arrayed as respondents in the application filed under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C., who were duty bond to implement and obey the orders passed by learned trial Court. However, those private individuals who were not party to lis and against whom no order had been passed by the Court could not have been arrayed as respondent in an application so filed under Order 39 Rule 2-A. As this important aspect of the matter has been ignored by learned Court below, therefore, the order of issuance of notice to such person is perse bad and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 13. Accordingly, this petition succeeds and the order passed by learned Court below to the extent that notices stand issued to the present petitioners, is quashed and set aside. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, also stand disposed.