Civil Revision No. 6111 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6111 of 2008 Date of decision: 28.05.2009. Gurdwara Sarkari Dharamshala (Khalsa Diwan), Faridkot ...Petitioner Versus Kiranpreet Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. H.S.Bhuller, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the respondent No.1. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The facts, apparent from the record, are as under:- The plaintiff-respondents is grand son of Mohan Singh. As per the allegations of the plaintiff-respondent, the shop in question which belongs to Maharaja Faridkot, was gifted by the latter to the former i.e. Mohan Singh by way of gift, vide a document dated 20.5.1948. The plaintiff-respondent and the performa defendants are owner in possession of that shop. As against it, the defendant- petitioner whose premises are just adjacent to that shop is inclined to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-respondent(and performa defendants) without having any legal right therein. Civil Revision No. 6111 of 2008 -2- **** The plaintiff-respondent, as an interim measure, applied for the restraint of the defendant-petitioner from interfering in his possession. The learned Trial Court declined the ad-interim stay plea by observing that plaintiff-respondent “has concealed the material facts about the previous litigation in his suit and also mentioned in para no.15 that no other suit of the similar nature is pending or decided by the Court of competent jurisdiction.” In appeal, however, the learned Ist Appellate court, recorded a finding of reversal and restrained the defendant-petitioner “from taking possession of the shop in dispute till the decision of the civil suit.” The reference, in the context, was to a civil suit which had been filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-petitioner and performa defendants qua this very property. The validity of the impugned gift deed is also challenged therein. It is apparent from the record that an ejectment plea filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-petitioner was rejected by the Rent Controller, Faridkot vide order dated 4.11.1993. The first appeal filed by the defendant-petitioner against that order was accepted by the Ist Appellate Court vide order dated 7.4.1995. The plaintiff-respondent and the performa defendants etc. filed a revision petition before this Court against the order dated 7.4.1995. That matter remained pending before this Court upto 1.11.1999. In the meantime, the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997 ( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) came into force. In terms of the provisions of that Act, the Civil Revision No. 6111 of 2008 -3- **** jurisdiction to try the case of indicated category came to be vested in the District Collector in the State of Punjab. In the light thereof,. This Court allowed the revision petition and plaintiff-respondent was relegated to file an ejectment application under Section 4 read with Section 5 and 6 of the Act. It is further apparent from the record that the District Collector, Faridkot, allowed the ejectment plea filed by the respondents in terms of the provisions of Section 4 read with Section 5 and 6 of the Act. An appeal filed by the defendant-petitioner against that order was rejected by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, vide order dated 27.2.2008. In that view of things, it is apparent that the plaintiff-respondent is seeking eviction of the defendant-petitioner in due course of law. There is no reason why a validly granted order should be stayed by the Civil Court. If the defendant-petitioner ultimately succeeds at the trial, he can have resort to the provisions of Section 144 of the C.P.C. For the moment, it requires to be noticed that the plaintiff-respondent is in the process of obtaining the possession of the premises under reference in execution of the order passed by the District Collector, Faridkot under Section 4 read with Section 5 and 6 of the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997 which (order) had become final. It is also pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that a real brother of the defendant-petitioner had earlier filed a civil suit for this very relief and that suit was dismissed as withdrawn. Civil Revision No. 6111 of 2008 -4- **** In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal shall stand allowed. The impugned order shall stand set aside. The order passed by the learned Trial Court is restored. The ad-interim stay plea shall stand rejected. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 17.7.2009. However, in the circumstances of the case, the learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of the main suit itself within three months from 17.7.2009. The acknowledgment (of a copy of this order) issued by the concerned Judicial Officer shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court. Learned Sessions Judge shall himself maintain a tab to ensure that the case is disposed of by afore-mentioned date. May 28, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge