Dera Santgarh Harkhowal and Others Vs Manjit Singh and Another

[292] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR-3286-2026 (O&M) Date of D ecision : 30.04.2026

Dera San t garh, Harkhowal, Tehsil & District H oshiarpur and others …Petitioners versus Manjit Si n gh and another ….Respondents

¶4

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Ajay Kalra, Advocate, M r. Pritpal Singh Sangha, Advocate and Ms. Isha Janj u a, Advocate for the petitioners. ****

¶5

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶6

[1] Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf o f the respo n dents and has filed his vakalat n ama in Court today. The same is taken on record.

¶7

[2] The present revision petitio n is directed against Order date d 14.01.20 2 6, which reads as under:-

¶8

“ The case was fixed fo r arguments on application und e r Order 39 Rule 1&2 CPC as p e r the earlier order dated 1.8.202 5 . Since then arguments are n ot being addressed on the sta y application. At about 3:45 pm, Gurmit Singh stated to be attorne y on behalf of plaintiff appeare d and did not say anything. He w a s asked if the arguments would b e addressed by the ld. Counsel f o r plaintiff or anyone on behalf of plaintiff, but he did not clari fy anything. Perusal of file revea l s that sine 1.8.2025 repeatedly, the matter is being adjourned for arguments on stay application b u t for one reason or another, the arguments have not bee n addressed. It seems that plaintiff is not interested to pursue th i s application under Order 39 R u le 1&2 CPC, however Ld.Couns e l for defendants are present to a d dress the arguments. Accordingl y , the application under Order 3 9 Rule 1&2 CPC is disposed o ff being not pressed.

¶9

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.01 16:27 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶10

CR-3286-2026 (O&M)

¶11

-2-

¶12

Since issues in this case have already been framed vide order dated 10.7.2025, the matter is adjourned for evidence of plaintiff. Dasti summons be taken at own responsibility, and Ahlmad is directed to issue notice to witnesses as per list of witnesses already attached by the plaintiff on record. The matter is adjourned to 27.1.2026 for plaintiff evidence.”

¶13

[3] The Trial Court disposed off the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC as not pressed keeping in view the conduct of the plaintiff. In the considered opinion of this Court, even though the Court may be justified in making observation with respect to the conduct of the plaintiffs but it ought to have adjudicated upon the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC.

¶14

[4] Counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs undertakes that the plaintiffs shall argue the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC.

¶15

[5] On his undertaking, the impugned order dated 14.01.2026 is set aside , subject to the condition that the plaintiffs shall argue the application on the date fixed by the Trial Court after the present order is brought to its notice.

¶16

[6] With the aforesaid observations, the present revision petition

¶17

is dismissed.

¶18

[7] Plaintiffs are warned to be careful and should not adopt any delaying tactics. Rather they should aide the expeditious disposal of lis.

¶19

(PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶20

30.04.2026

¶21

‘R. Sharma'