C.R. No. 3892 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3892 of 2009 Date of Decision : 16.7.2009 Roshan Puri .......... Petitioner Versus Ram Avtar & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28.5.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge ( Jr. Divn.), Mohindergarh vide which application moved by respondents No.1 & 2, for directing the petitioner / plaintiff to comply with the interim order dated 12.2.2004 passed in a suit, has been accepted. The father of respondents No.1 & 2 was a priest of Shiv Mandir Bhagot Sakin Village Bhagot Tehsil and District Mohindergarh. In a suit filed by him ad interim order was passed directing the petitioner herein to pay him Rs. 2500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only ) per month, as salary for the services being rendered by their father. Shiv Kumar priest died during the pendency of the suit. C.R. No. 3892 of 2009 2 Respondents No.1 & 2 being sons of the priest got themselves impleaded in the suit as plaintiffs. The order impleading respondents No.1 & 2 was challenged by the petitioner up to this Court. This Court affirmed the order passed by the learned trial Court. The petitioner did not make the payment to the legal representatives of Shiv Kumar on the plea that special leave petition against the order passed by this Court was pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The stand taken was, that the amount could not be directed to be deposited till the decision of the special leave petition. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that defendants No. 1 & 2 are not performing any duties and, therefore, they are not entitled to salary fixed. On consideration, I do not find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, no stay has been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the special leave petition filed against the order passed by this Court. Even notice has not been issued. Merely filing of special leave petition cannot be a ground to disobey the order passed by the competent Court. The plea of the petitioner, that defendants No.1 & 2 are not entitled to the amount claimed, also cannot be sustained as admittedly respondents No.1 & 2 have been substituted in place of Shiv Kumar as his legal heirs. The ad interim order has not been modified or set aside by the Court. Nothing has been placed on record showing that any such application has been filed before the learned Court on death of the original plaintiff. C.R. No. 3892 of 2009 3 The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner also cannot be sustained. No merit. Dismissed. 16.7.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE