IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4130 of 2010 Date of Decision: 01.09.2010 Sunita and another .... Petitioners Versus Royal Orchid Company and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amandeep Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Parshant Bansal, Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Garg, Advocate for the respondents ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Present petition is filed challenging order dated 23.12.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Rajpura and order dated 7.4.2010 passed by Addl. District Judge, Patiala whereby application moved by the plaintiffs (respondents herein) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was allowed restraining the defendants-petitioners not to alienate and change the nature of the property in dispute. Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Amandeep Agnihotri, Advocate stated that in a previous suit ad interim injunction was sought against defendant No. 1 and no ad interim injunction was sought against defendant No. 2 – Ashok Goyal predecessor-in- interest of the present petition. He further stated that learned trial Court vide order dated 30.9.2009 wrongly passed status quo order against the parties while ad interim injunction was sought only against defendant No. 1. Learned Sr. counsel further states that realising that status quo order was wrongly passed against the parties despite of the fact that no ad interim injunction was C.R. No. 4130 of 2010 2 sought against defendant No. 2. Application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC was moved by Ashok Goyal – defendant No. 2 to modify the order dated 30.9.2009 to the extent status quo order is against the defendant No. 1 only. He further states that realising the mistake that no ad interim injunction was sought against Ashok Goyal – defendant No. 2 and was sought against defendant No. 1 only, plaintiff has also moved an application seeking ad interim injunction against defendant No. 2 – Ashok Goyal and till day no order has been passed by trial Court either on the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC moved by defendant No. 2 or on the application seeking ad interim injunction against defendant No. 2. Learned counsel further stated that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to argue on merits on the applications moved by the plaintiff as well as by defendant No. 2 before the trial Court. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection on it. Present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to parties to argue on their respective applications under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC as well as seeking ad interim injunction against defendant No. 2. Learned trial Court is requested to decide both the applications preferably within 60 days from today. Copy of this order be placed on all the connected cases. (ALOK SINGH) 01.09.2010 JUDGE reena