S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.68/2008 in S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.906/2008 Ajay Singh vs. Smt. Nalini Rana DATE OF ORDER : 6/1/2009 1/3 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.68/2008 in S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.906/2008 (Ajay Singh vs. Smt. Nalini Rana) DATE OF ORDER : 6/1/2009 HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.M.C.Bhoot, for the applicant. Heard learned counsel on the application under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC. Learned counsel has submitted that status quo order granted by the trial court and maintained by this Court by the judgment dated 24/10/2008 deciding the appeal itself deserves to be modified and the appellant should be permitted to complete the construction of the Guest House in question. Having heard learned counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the said application amounts to a virtual review petition against the judgment dated 24/10/2008. The position of construction of Guest House in question was the same as it existed at the time of passing of the status quo order by the learned trial court on 27/5/2008 as well as on 24/10/2008. The Court being conscious of these facts still gave its reasons to maintain the order of trial court dt:27/5/2008 and dismissed the appeal of defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant Mr.M.C.Bhoot submits that since no irreparable loss is going to be caused to the S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.68/2008 in S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.906/2008 Ajay Singh vs. Smt. Nalini Rana DATE OF ORDER : 6/1/2009 2/3 plaintiff respondent, therefore, the order deserves to be modified and defendant should be permitted to complete the guest house construction. He further submits that the defendant is ready to furnish an undertaking that in case the decree is passed in favour of respondent- plaintiff, the defendant-the present petitioner will remove the entire construction in question and, therefore, whether it is 90% of the construction or 100% of construction, it does not matter. The Court while taking into consideration all the three relevant aspects of the case namely prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience passed the injunction order to maintain the status quo of the suit property during the pendency of the suit. That having been passed by learned trial court and maintained by this Court vide order dated 24/10/2008, this Court finds no change in the situation at this stage and, therefore, these arguments now sought to be raised by present application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC are of little help to the defendant. Consequently, this Court is no inclined to modify the judgment dated 24/10/2008. The defendant shall however be at liberty to pray before the trial court for expediting the trial of the suit itself. With these observations, this misc.application is dismissed. No costs. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.68/2008 in S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.906/2008 Ajay Singh vs. Smt. Nalini Rana DATE OF ORDER : 6/1/2009 3/3 item no.28 baweja/-