M/S Gulati Cycle Works And Others vs Municipal Council on 11 May, 2009

C.R.No.5061 of 2007                                                       1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                           CHANDIGARH

                                                     C.R.No.5061 of 2007
                                             Date of Decision:11.05.2009.

M/s Gulati Cycle Works and others                                ...Petitioners

                                    Versus

Municipal Council, Rewari and others                          ...Respondents

CORAM :              Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.D.Anand.

Present: Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners.
         Mr. Mukesh Verma, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
                               *****

S.D.Anand, J. (ORAL)

In a finding of affirmation, both the Courts (learned Trial Court

and also the learned First Appellate Court) recorded a finding that the

respondents – public servants are proceeding with the impugned

demolition/removal of encroachment in accordance with law i.e. Municipal

Act and further that the plaintiffs- petitioners, in their wisdom, did not opt to

avail of any equally efficacious remedy available to them under the

municipal law itself. In that view of things, there is no force in the plea on

behalf of the plaintiffs – petitioners that status quo may be ordered to be

observed by the parties and their Takhts etc. may not be removed from the

area which is described by respondent – Municipal Council as a public

passage.

The learned counsel for the plaintiffs – petitioners states that a

status quo order had been granted by the learned Trial Court in the similar

matter. The learned counsel for the respondents challenges the

correctness of the averment by pointing out that the case aforementioned

pertained to a Gali; whereas the present encroachment pertains to a part of

national highway, which is to be widened for the smoother flow of the

traffic.

C.R.No.5061 of 2007 2

This Court (as a Revisional Court) would be reluctant to interfere

in the judicial discretion exercised by both the Courts, particularly when it is

apparent that both the Courts have exercised their judicial discretion in an

appropriate manner.

The petition, being denuded of merit, is ordered to be dismissed.

However, in view of the nature of the controversy, it is ordered

that the learned Trial Court shall dispose of the main suit itself within two

moths from the next date of hearing before it. Both the parties shall avail of

equal number of opportunities for concluding their evidence. If any party is

inclined to summon any official witness, it shall be entitled to take dasti

summons but the non return or non-effecting of service thereof would not

entitle that party to ask for any further adjournment.

The acknowledgment (of a copy of this order) issued by the

concerned Judicial Officer shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court.

Learned District Judge shall himself maintain a tab to ensure that the case

is disposed of by aforementioned date.

May 11, 2009.                                                 (S.D.Anand)
vinod                                                              Judge