Civil Revision No.3416 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3416 of 2005 Date of Decision:05.08.2009 Ram Saroop .....Petitioner versus Sub Divisional Officer Public Health, Sub Division No.2, Mohindergarh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Ashish Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral) In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff-petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.4.2004 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial court whereby the application filed by him under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for injunction was dismissed and on appeal thereagainst, that order was affirmed by the lower appellate court vide order dated 21.3.2005 (Annexure P-3). The Courts below while deciding the interim injunction application had recorded that the plaintiff had connected his water pipes with a special water-supply line meant for school children but had declined the interim injunction on the ground that the same had been done unauthorisedly by the plaintiff-petitioner. Civil Revision No.3416 of 2005 2 This Court on July 07, 2005, while issuing notice of motion, had passed the following order:- “By referring to documents Annexures P/4 to P/6, counsel contends that in fact, water tap was installed just in front of the house of the petitioner. He further states that the Courts below have gone wrong by not looking into these documents. Notice of motion for 19.9.2005. Parties are directed to maintain status quo till further orders”. Thereafter, the present petition was admitted and the interim order dated 07.07.2005 was ordered to continue. On a query being put by the Court, learned counsel for the parties were unable to apprise this Court whether the civil suit out of which the instant revision petition has arisen, has since been decided or not by the trial Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the fact that the interim order of status quo has been continuing for the last four years, the interim order dated 07.07.2005 is made absolute. However, the present revision petition is disposed of with a direction that in case, the civil suit has not been decided so far, the trial court shall decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one year. August 05, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) seema JUDGE