Pt Bhagwat Dayal Sharma University of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Pt Bhagwat Dayal Sharma University of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Time-bound disposal sought by petitioner granted: learned District Judge, Rohtak directed to decide appeal No.CA-26-2026 within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order, in accordance with law; Registry directed to forward a copy of the order to the learned District Judge, Rohtak for compliance; all pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned District Judge, Rohtak should be directed to decide the petitioner's pending appeal (No.CA-26-2026) within a time-bound period. +1 more

Court's answer

The learned District Judge, Rohtak is directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner-plaintiff within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

Issuance of notice to the respondent is dispensed with, as it would only delay the proceedings and entail unnecessary expense.

Key takeaways

The revision petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case; accordingly, whether the status quo order dated 09.03.2026 should be set aside was not decided by this court.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revision petition (CR-3734-2026(O&M)) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Pt. Bhagwat Dayal Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak against the status quo order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the learned District Judge, Rohtak in appeal No.CA-26-2026, which had been instituted against the order dated 15.01.2026 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak allowing the respondent's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint and dismissing the University's suit. The petitioner sought only a direction that the pending first appeal be decided within a time-bound period. Without issuing notice to the respondent (dispensed with as causing delay and expense), the Court disposed of the petition without expressing any opinion on the merits, directing the learned District Judge, Rohtak to decide the appeal within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order, in accordance with law; the Registry was directed to forward a copy for compliance and pending applications were disposed of. Judgment by Amarinder Singh Grewal, J., dated 04.05.2026.

��

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(123)

CR-3734-2026(O&M) Date of Decision:-04.05.2026

Pt. Bhagwat Dayal Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak

……Petitioner

Versus

Joginder Singh

……Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present: Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 09.03.2026 (Annexure P-22), passed by learned District Judge, Rohtak in appeal No.CA-26-2026, whereby the order of status quo regarding the possession and functioning of the shop in question has been passed, in favour of the respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Rohtak against the order dated 15.01.2026, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint, filed by the respondent, has been allowed and the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff has been dismissed. He further contends that learned First Appellate Court had granted the status quo regarding possession and

-1-

KANCHAN 2026.05.05 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

��

functioning of the shop in question has been passed and the case has been adjourned for final arguments. It is contended that, through the present petition, the petitioner seeks only a direction to the learned District Judge, Rohtak to decide the appeal within a time-bound period.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have perused the paper-book.

In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the respondent is dispensed with, as the same would only delay the proceedings and entail unnecessary expense.

Considering the averments made in the petition, the present revision petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The learned District Judge, Rohtak is directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner-plaintiff within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law.

The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the learned District Judge, Rohtak for compliance.

All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE

04.05.2026

Kanchan

Whether speaking/reasoned:-	Yes/No
Whether Reportable:-	Yes/No

-2-

KANCHAN 2026.05.05 15:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment