IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.149 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.04.2010 Municipal Corporation, Faridabad through its Commissioner, NIT, Faridabad. ….Petitioner versus Ram Singh (deceased) through his LRs and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: None. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers 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? ----- K.Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The Civil Revision is against an order passed in a pending suit. The civil revision had been dismissed for non-prosecution on 3th September, 2009 and on an application filed by the petitioner, it was restored to its original number. Even when the case is now posted for hearing, there is no appearance on behalf of either side. The matter has been included in the list for final disposal in the Samadhan Scheme floated by this Court and, therefore, I hasten to pass order by examining the records. 2. In a suit for declaration and for consequential relief for permanent injunction against the Commissioner, Municipal Committee, Faridabad, in an attempt to stave-off the orders of ejectment passed against them, the trial Court had dismissed the petition finding that the Civil Revision No.149 of 2006 (O&M) - 2 - plaintiffs-petitioners had no prima facie case and an action for ejectment passed under the Public Premises Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') could not be interfered with by reference to Section 10 of the Act. The Appellate Court had modified it to observe that the status quo in relation to the property shall be maintained, taking note of the fact that it had been filed in the year 2004 and directing the expeditious disposal of the suit. It is the order of the status quo that was issued by the Appellate Authority which is in challenge by the defendant-petitioner before this Court. 3. The interference which is in revision is under Article 227 of the Constitution and unless there is a patent illegality, there is no scope for interference. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has frowned upon the practice of ordering status quo without stating what the status meant. In this case, however, it is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs were in possession of the property and they were seeking for injunction against being dispossessed in purported exercise of the defendants' powers under the Act. There was a merit in the contention of the plaintiffs that the Act itself could not have decided the issue of title. The extent of operation of Section 10 of the Act giving a finality to a decision is certainly a potential weapon in the hands of the State to contend that what was not effectively canvassed by the plaintiffs could not be urged by means of a separate suit but interim orders are passed only for preservation of status quo and the order passed by the Appellate Authority could not be characterized as illegal for an intervention in the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. Civil Revision No.149 of 2006 (O&M) - 3 - 4. The suit would require to be taken up in right earnest and the order of the District Court which is in challenge in revision is, therefore, confirmed and the Civil Revision is dismissed, however with a direction that the trial Court shall take up the suit and adjudicate on merits within a period of 6 months from the date of this order. 5. The Civil Revision is disposed of on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 27.04.2010 sanjeev