Civil Rev. 1009 of 2007 (O&M) 1
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH
Civil Rev. 1009 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of decision: 11.8.2009
Sangat Sahib Pheru Sikh Educational Society (Regd.)
Petitioner
vs
Punjab State and others
Respondent
Present Mr. M.L.Sarin,Sr.Advocate with
Mr. Vivek Sood, Advocate
Mr. NS Pawar, Addl.A.G.Pb
Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr.Advocate with
Ms. Madhu Dayal, Advocate for respondent No.2
M.M.S.BEDI,J.
The plaintiff- petitioner claiming to be in possession of the
property in dispute has sought a declaration that it is entitled to transfer of
the ownership rights of the same on the basis of a scheme formulated vide
Notification dated 23.8.2001. While adjudicating upon an application for
interim injunction, he learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.D.) Faridkot vide
order dated 27.9.2005 ordered that the property in dispute be not alienated
during the pendency of the suit. In an appeal filed by the Punjab Urban
Planning and Development Authority, Punjab, the lower appellate court
reversed the order observing that since the defendant-respondents are in
possession, the application for interim injunction had been wrongly
accepted. The said order has been impugned in this revision petition.
Vide interim order dated 24.9.2007, passed by this court, the
parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the alienation of
the property in dispute till further orders. The relief claimed by the plaintiff-
petitioner, in this revision petition, is only to the extent that the defendant-
Civil Rev. 1009 of 2007 (O&M) 2
respondents be restrained from alienating or putting the land in dispute in
auction during the pendency of the suit.
Mr. M.L.sarin, Senior Advocate has contended that the lower
appellate court, on flimsy grounds, has reversed the order passed by the
trial court, whereas Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate has contended
that the defendant-respondents cannot be restrained from alienating the
property in dispute in accordance with law.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is deemed
appropriate , in the interest of justice, to dispose of the revision petition with
a direction that the parties will maintain “status quo” regarding alienation of
the property in dispute till the final decision of the suit filed by the plaintiff-
petitioner. A direction is issued that the suit will be decided within a period
of nine months from the next date of hearing fixed before the trial court.
Leaned counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner has undertaken on behalf of his
client to produce the entire evidence before the trial court within a period of
three months from the next date of hearing fixed before the trial court and
not to seek any further adjournments. In view of the said undertaking a
direction is given to the defendant-respondents to complete their entire
evidence within a period of five months after the date of closing of the
evidence of the plaintiff- petitioner by the trial court and the trial court will
decide the suit finally by 31.5.2010.
The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
August 11 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE