Civil Revision No. 3500 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3500 of 2011 Date of Decision: 25.5.2011 *** Balaji Education Society .. Petitioner Vs. Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. SG.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit against respondents claiming that the private respondents No.3 and 4 are running liquor vend, allotted by respondents No.1 and 2, in contravention of excise policy. Along with the suit an application for ad-interim injunction was filed. The learned trial Court, on the basis of proof produced before it, in the shape of local commissioner, who was appointed by the Court, concluded that there is contravention of excise policy and hence, the liquor vends were ordered to be closed within seven days. However, on an appeal the appellate Court below set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court. Dis-satisfied with the same, instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned appellate Court while setting aside the reasoned order of trial Court has failed to take into consideration the report of the local commissioner as well as the site plan, which show the existence of the liquor vend within 150 meters of the bus stand premises and the temple. There is considerable force in this contention. The impugned order reveals that none of the aforesaid documents were taken into consideration by the learned appellate Court while deciding the appeal filed against grant of ad-interim injunction by the learned trial Court. Civil Revision No. 3500 of 2011 2 In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the appellate Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the appellate Court below to pass orders afresh on the appeal preferred by the respondents, after hearing both the parties, but without being influenced from any observations made hereinabove. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, they will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that if they feel dissatisfied with this order, they may move an application to recall the same. With the aforesaid observations and directions the instant revision petition stands disposed of. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 25, 2011 Jiten