The High Court disposed of a civil revision regarding an interim injunction. It held the interim order from 2006 should continue until the underlying civil suit concludes, avoiding prejudice to the pending suit.
The interim order dated 8.9.2006 shall continue to operate till the suit is decided.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No. 66 26 of 2005. Date of Decision: 1st April, 2009 .
Gurudatt Gupta
....Petitioner through Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate
Versus
Rameshwar Dass Gupta Respondent through Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL)
This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 19.9.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra whereby the respondent-plaintiff's appeal has been allowed and the interim injunction order dated 18.3.2005 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge [Senior Division], Kurukshetra was set aside.
While admitting this revision petition, this Court passed the following order on 8.9.2006:-
“ Admitted.
In the meantime, the petitioner shall not be restrained from using first floor of the shop in question by ensuring that the possession of the plaintiff-respondent over the shop in dispute as tenant, shall not be interfered with, in any manner”.
Learned counsel for the respondent points out that the
civil suit is still pending.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view regard to the fact that the interim order dated 8.9.2006 is operating from last more than two years, I do not deem it necessary to go into the rival contentions of the parties so that no prejudice is caused in the pending suit, rather deem it appropriate to dispose of this revision petition with a direction that the interim order dated 8.9.2006 shall continue to operate till the suit is decided.
Disposed of.
April 01, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the interim order from 2006 should continue to operate until the underlying civil suit is decided.
Gurudatt Gupta
Rameshwar Dass Gupta
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
