C.R. No.2867 of 2003 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2867 of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.08.2009 Subhash Chander .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents Present: Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G., Haryana. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?No -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The revision is against the dismissal of the application for injunction at the trial Court, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court at the interlocutory stage. This Court, while admitting the matter on 02.03.2004 has observed that the pendency of the revision petition shall not preclude the learned trial Court from proceeding with the suit as expeditiously as possible. The parties were also directed to maintain status quo regarding possession till further orders. 2. Since the date of admission and a direction for disposal, if the expression of the expeditious disposal were to have had meaning to the trial Court, it shall have disposed of the matter by now. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks for time for obtaining C.R. No.2867 of 2003 (O&M) -2- instructions whether the suit is still pending or whether it has been disposed of. Even without the need for securing instructions, I am of the view that if the suit has been disposed of already, this revision must be taken as dismissed as infructuous. If it has not been disposed of, the civil revision shall still require the same mode of disposal that having regard to the direction given by the Court at the stage of admission that parties shall maintain status quo and it was not modified till this date, the status quo as observed by the Hon'ble High Court shall be, was found by the Appellate Court and shall remain. 3. The revision petition is disposed of, as such, making no modification of the order already passed by the Appellate Court. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 18, 2009 Pankaj*