Civil Revision No. 6820 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6820 of 2011 Date of decision. 22.11.2011 Dharambir and others .... Petitioners Versus Kewal Krishan ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Dharambir Singh and others, the defendants have brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for directing learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri to decide the application filed by Kewal Krishan, respondent under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC as also for setting aside the order dated 05.08.2011 passed by the said court, vide which the suit had been adjourned to 23.08.2011 for filing written statement and in the meanwhile the defendants were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Civil Revision No. 6820 of 2011 --2-- Kewal Krishan had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful cultivating possession over the land in question situated in the revenue estate of village Sili Kalan, Tehsil Jagadhri , District Yamuna Nagar as also from alienating the same to anyone except the plaintiff. The order restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property has been made on 05.08.2011. Learned trial court has received written statement and reply to the injunction application on 17.10.2011. Still the court adjourned the case to 07.12.2011. The stay already granted was extended till then. When the pleadings necessary for disposal of the injunction application were before the trial court on 17.10.2011, the matter should not have been adjourned to a date about 50 days away for consideration of the injunction application. It should have been immediately heard and the injunction application should have been decided. There was no justification to adjourn the case to such a long date after receipt of the written statement and reply to the application. In these circumstances, the petitioners-defendants cannot be held unjustified in knocking at the doors of this court for seeking direction to learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri to decide the application for ad-interim injunction on the date fixed. Keeping in view the above mentioned circumstances, the revision petition is allowed directing learned trial court to decide the ad- Civil Revision No. 6820 of 2011 --3-- interim injunction application on 07.12.2011 and if adjournment of the case beyond the said date is found necessary, then within two weeks from that date. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 22.11.2011 JUDGE dinesh