C.R.No.6293 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6293 of 2008. Decided on: December 08, 2009. Subhash Singh .. Petitioner VERSUS Paras Mittal and another .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.G.B.S.Dhillon, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate, for the respondents. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff has preferred this revision petition against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal, in proceeding under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, and dismissing the application of the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, by reversing the order passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Kaithal. . . . 1 C.R.No.6293 of 2008 The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenging the decree dated 13.01.2006, obtained by respondent Paras against the Municipal Committee, pertaining to a plot measuring 150 X 63, comprising in Khasra No.485. It is pertinent to observe that the Municipal Committee has itself filed a separate suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenging the said decree dated 13.01.2006. The plaintiff-petitioner had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, for an ad interim injunction against defendant-respondent No.1, to restrain him from raising any construction on the land in dispute. The trial Court has allowed the application without examining whether the petitioner had a prima facie strong case in his favour or whether balance of convenience lies in his favour. The Court did not even examine whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff- petitioner. The lower appellate Court has set aside the order passed by the trial Court by passing the following order: - “10. As a sequel to the above, the impugned order dated 01.08.2007, cannot be sustained and is ordered to be set aside. The appeal stands allowed and application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 stands dismissed. The appellant shall, however, not claim any compensation for the construction raised by him in case the suit of the plaintiff is ultimately decreed. Trial Court record along with copy of this order be sent back forthwith. Parties are directed to appear before learned trial Court on the date fixed. Appeal file be consigned to record room after due . . . 2 C.R.No.6293 of 2008 compliance. Announced in open Court.” Since the rights of the original owner will not be prejudiced by the interim order passed by the Additional District Judge, by above said observations, there does not appear to be any infirmity in the order passed by the lower appellate Court. I have also carefully examined the facts and circumstances of the case. The plaintiff-petitioner does not seem to have, prima facie, a strong case in his favour on account of his locus standi pertaining to the property. The rights and interests of the Municipal Committee are being watched by filing a separate suit, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-6. In view of above circumstances, no ground is made out for interference in the order passed by the lower appellate Court. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE December 08, 2009. rka . . . 3