Civil Revision No. 7454 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7454 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.4.2010 Jagar Singh .. Petitioner v. Jarnail Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Goel & Mr. G. S. Bhatia, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 5. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The challenge in the present case is to the orders passed by the learned courts below in an application filed by respondents No. 1 to 5/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2. The trial court had granted interim injunction in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs. In appeal, the same was confirmed, as the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. It is conceded position that during the pendency of appeal before the learned lower appellate court for almost more than 4 years, there was no interim stay in favour of the petitioner. The civil suit was filed on 17.2.2004. The same is still at the stage of evidence of the plaintiffs. In my opinion, the interest of justice in the present case would be served in case the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the suit. The respondents-plaintiffs shall conclude their evidence on or before 15.6.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner-defendant shall conclude their evidence on or before 15.9.2010. It has been made clear to counsel for the parties that they would not be granted any further opportunity under any circumstances. After conclusion of evidence of the parties, the trial court shall finally decide the case on or before 30.10.2010. As there was no interim stay in favour of the petitioner even during the pendency of appeal before the learned lower appellate court for more than 4 years, I do not find any reason to grant interim stay even for this short period of 6 months. However, as admitted by the respondents in the application filed by them Civil Revision No. 7454 of 2009 [2] that the petitioner is in possession of one house, the possession thereof shall not be disturbed. It is made clear that nothing expressed above shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 28.4.2010 mk