C.R. No. 4028 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4028 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.11.2011 ... Balbir and another ................Petitioners vs. Hardwari Mal and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioners Sh. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate and Ms. Shivani Verma, Advocate for Sh. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate for the respondent. ... K.C. Puri, J. Challenge in this revision petition is the judgment dated 3.6.2003 passed by Sh. Satish Ahlawat, Additional District Judge, Hisar, vide which the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant was accepted, while setting aside the order dated 11.3.2003 passed by Sh. Jaibir Singh, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar. Briefly stated, Hardwari Lal filed suit for a declaration being co-sharer of the land described in the plaint. Alongwith the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed and that C.R. No. 4028 of 2003 -2- application was dismissed vide order dated 11.3.2003 passed by Sh. Jaibir Singh, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar. Said order was challenged before the District Judge and Sh. Satish Ahlawat, Additional District Judge, Hisar vide judgment dated 3.6.2003 accepted the appeal and directed the CRO/competent authority to conduct further proceedings. Vide order dated 1.9.2003, this Court passed the following order:- “Contends that the lower Appellate Court after holding that the proceedings before the CRO/Competent authority were illegal, null and void and not sustainable in the eyes of law, could not direct the parties to appear before the CRO/competent authority for further proceedings especially when there was no such prayer had been made in the petition. Notice of motion for 15.12.2003. Meanwhile further proceedings shall remain stayed.” Now, during the course of arguments, it is pointed out that civil suit is still pending and the present petition has simply arisen out of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Counsel for the parties have stated at the Bar that they have no objection in case the matter is left open to be decided by the Civil Court. So, in view of the statement made by counsel for the parties, the revision petition stands disposed of. The trial Court shall decide C.R. No. 4028 of 2003 -3- the case independently in respect of the observations made in application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC by the trial Court or the Appellate Court. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( K.C. Puri ) 25.11.2011 Judge chugh