C.R.No.7119 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.7119 of 2008 Date of decision : 22.12.2008 District Cricket Association ...Petitioner Versus Sanjay Bhatia and others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER ..... Present : Mr.R.K.Chhibbar, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Advocate for the petitioner. MAHESH GROVER, J.(Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.11.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is against one particular sentence which appears in the impugned order to the following effect :- “...It was only defendant No.4 who had been restrained....” Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the suit which was preferred by him, there were only four defendants, namely, the State of Haryana, District Cricket Association, Haryana Cricket Association and Vijay Yadav, yet against the order of the learned trial court by which it had answered the application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. the appeal was preferred by the District Cricket Association, which was not a party before the trial court. A grievance has been made against the aforesaid observation of C.R.No.7119 of 2008 -2- the learned lower Appellate Authority on the premise that in the garb of this order and because of the observation which has been reproduced above, the respondents are resorting to the activities which are restrained by the learned trial court. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the order of the lower Appellate Authority. A perusal of the order dated 26.9.2006 passed by the Addl.Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Faridabad reveals that only defendant No.4, who is Vijay Yadav in the array of parties in the suit was restrained. The direction was as follows :- “...Therefore, defendant No.4 is restrained to select the team for District Faridabad and to get the players played in the name of District Faridabad till final decision of the suit. I order accordingly....” The observation made by the lower Appellate Authority is mere reiteration of what has been stated by the learned trial court. In this view of the matter, there is no ambiguity or infirmity in the impugned order and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a person who was not a party to the proceedings has preferred the appeal, is without any merit for the reason that it makes no difference to the ultimate order which was passed by the learned lower Appellate Authority and the effect remains the same. In this view of the matter, the revision petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 22.12.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss