IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5843 of 2005(O&M) Date of decision: 21.3.2009 Hans Raj ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. PJS Sullar, AAG, Haryana. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.6341-CII of 2009 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.5843 of 2005 This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the orders dated 22.8.2005 and 26.10.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gurgaon and Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon respectively whereby application for ad interim injunction during the pendency of the civil suit filed by him was dismissed. This Court, at the time of issuance of notice of motion, vide order dated 10.11.2005 had stayed the reversion of the plaintiff-petitioner. The aforesaid order is still continuing. It may also be noticed here that in spite of the fact that proceedings before the trial Court in civil suit were not stayed yet the civil suit is still pending at the stage of plaintiff's evidence. I have perused the zimni orders passed by the trial Court as produced by the petitioner. I find that one application for amendment of the plaint moved by the petitioner is still pending and it seems that the suit before the trial Court is not proceeding further. From these facts, I am of CR No.5843 of 2005(O&M) -2- the view that the proceedings before the trial Court need to be expedited. Counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that the plaintiff-petitioner will not move any fresh application and will conclude his evidence within two effective opportunities at his own risk and responsibility. Let the civil suit be decided by the trial Court expeditiously, preferably within six months from today. Till then, interim order as ordered by this Court on 10.11.2005 shall continue. With these observations, the revision petition stands disposed of. Copy of this order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. However, this interim order is without prejudice to the rights of respondent No.3. March 21, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE