IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: F.A.O. No.1157 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : July 8,2009 Mukhtiar Singh .......Appellant versus Nirmal Singh and another ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate for the appellants. NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 03-11-2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, dismissing the application of the appellant under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC read with Section 151 of C.P.C. The respondents herein filed a suit for permanent injunction which was dismissed. The respondents then filed First Appeal along with an application for temporary injunction. In that application, following order was passed on 29-08-2008 by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana : “ Received by entrustment. It be arguable points are involved in the appeal. Admitted. Registered. Heard/Notice be issued to the respondent for 22.09.2008. Record be also summoned for the date fixed. However, in the meantime status-quo regarding possession of the suit property be maintained by both the parties.” F.A.O. No.1157 of 2009 -2- Since, the Court had directed both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession and the respondents herein, according to the appellant, violated order dated 29-08-2003. Therefore, the appellant filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of Civil Procedure Code. The said application was dismissed on 03-11-2008 and ultimately, the appeal filed by the respondents also met the same fate on 03-11-2008. The present appeal has been filed in this Court on 26-02-2009.The same was adjourned on March 4, 2009, in order to enable the appellants to argue as to whether the main appeal or suit out of which interlocutory order has arisen, which is subject matter of appeal before this Court has been dismissed, whether the order of stay survives for the purposes of pursuing of the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant is heard. In this case, the appellant had raised the plea and alleged that the wall was constructed by the respondent in spite of the status quo order obtained by Nirmal Singh and Saroop Singh in the appeal. Thus, the onus was upon the appellant to prove the same. The appellant was not able to bring any evidence to show that the said wall was constructed after the orders of status quo were passed by the Appellate Court on 29-08-2003. Even otherwise, it has been brought to the notice of the Court that the suit, out of which the interlocutory order of status quo was arose, has since been dismissed. No useful purpose would be served by pursuing the F.A.O. No.1157 of 2009 -3- present appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merits. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE July 8, 2009 gurpreet Whether to be referred to the Reporter : Yes / No