Parmod Kumari vs State Bank Of India And Others on 24 August, 2009

Civil Revision No.3671 of 2009                             1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                             C.M.No.15315-CII of 2009 and
                                             Civil Revision No.3671 of 2009

                                              Date of Decision:24.08.2009


Parmod Kumari

                                                           .....Petitioner
                                versus


State Bank of India and others

                                                           .....Respondents


CORAM:       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.


Present:     Mr.Dheeraj Jain, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Mr.S.M.Sharma, Advocate,
             for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

             None for the other respondents.

             ****

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral)

C.M.No.15315-CII of 2009

Allowed as prayed for.

Civil Revision No.3671 of 2009

In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, the plaintiff-petitioner has raised a grievance against

the order dated 24.06.2009 passed by the trial Court whereby an

application filed by her for grant of injunction was declined; and the order

27.06.2009 vide which the appeal challenging the order passed by the trial

Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court on the ground of non-

maintainability.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner states that the suit is
Civil Revision No.3671 of 2009 2

fixed for 16.09.2009 before the trial Court for service of the unserved

defendants. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the

defendant-respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall put in appearance before the trial

Court on the said date. Since, no final decision has been taken on the

interim injunction application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner, this revision

petition may be disposed of by directing the trial Court to decide the said

application expeditiously after hearing the counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner does not raise any

serious objection to the aforesaid prayer made by the learned counsel for

respondent Nos.2 and 3. He, however, states that till the application is

decided by the trial Court, the plaintiff-petitioner may not be dispossessed

from the property in dispute.

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

parties, the present revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the

trial Court to dispose of the application for interim injunction on merits, in

accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three

months after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. However, till the

said application is decided, the plaintiff-petitioner shall not be dispossessed

from the property in dispute.

It is, however, made clear that nothing observed in this order

shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 16.09.2009,

the date already fixed in the suit.

August 24, 2009                              (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
seema                                              JUDGE