Revision petition challenging an order setting aside an ad-interim injunction. The High Court directed the trial court to decide the suit within one year, granted three evidence opportunities, and continued the status quo until conclusion.
Directed trial court to decide the suit within one year and continue ad-interim status quo.
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.
Civil Revision No.8209 of 2010 -: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.8209 of 2010 Date of decision: September 12, 2011.
Darshan Singh
... Petitioner
v.
Jagroop Singh & Ors.
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Shri Ravish Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Shri P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral):
Present revision petition has been filed praying that the impugned order dated 18.10.2010 (Annexure P-7) passed by the court of Additional District Judge, Barnala whereby the ad-interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner was set aside, be quashed and the order passed by the trial court be restored. A Coordinate Bench of this Court on 22.12.2010, while issuing notice of motion, had passed the following order:-
“ Learned counsel for the petitioner states that plaintiff petitioner is in possession over the suit land for last more than 20 years and possession of the plaintiff is recorded in the revenue record as gair marausi, i.e., tenant. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that because of long established possession, plaintiff cannot be dispossessed without adopting
Civil Revision No.8209 of 2010
-: 2 :-
due procedure of law.
Notice of motion for 25.3.2011.
Respondents shall be served through the counsel appearing before the trial court on their behalf Dasti as well as by registered post in addition to normal mode of service on steps being taken by the petitioners within 48 hours.
Meanwhile, parties are directed to maintain status quo qua the possession and nature of the property. However, it is clarified that status quo granted shall not be construed to mean the stay of suit proceedings. Learned trial court shall proceed with the suit at its own merit in accordance with law. "
I have heard Counsel for the parties.
In the present case, the suit was filed in May 2009. It is stated
that the suit is progressing and part of the plaintiff's evidence was recorded. Counsel for the parties pray that in case three effective opportunities are granted to both the sides to conclude their evidence and the suit is decided within a stipulated time-frame, the ad-interim order passed by this Court on 22.10.2010 may continue.
After hearing Counsel for the parties, the trial court is directed is decide the suit within a period of one year by providing three effective opportunities to both the parties to lead their respective evidence.
Till the conclusion of the suit, ad-interim order dated 22.12.2010 shall continue.
The petition is disposed of.
September 12, 2011. kadyan
[ Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia ] Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the ad-interim order staying dispossession and maintaining status quo should continue until the conclusion of the suit.
Whether the trial court should be directed to decide the suit within a stipulated timeframe.
Darshan Singh
Jagroop Singh & Ors.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
