CR No.6511 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6511 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.11.2009 Mehar Singh ..Petitioner Versus Ranjit and Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr.Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. --- 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? --- VINOD K. SHARMA,J. (Oral) The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 9.10.2009 attached as Annexure P.1, which reads as under:- “ Arguments on stay application not advanced. Written CR No.6511 of 2009 2 request for adjournment has been made on behalf of plaintiff. Heard. Allowed. Now to come up on 4.12.2009 for arguments on stay application,. Undertaking given by defendant No.1 is extended till then., and the order dated 5.11.2009 attached as Annexure P.6 to the revision petition which reads a sunder:- “ Reply not filed by the plaintiff. Request for adjournment. Heard. Allowed. Now to come up on 26.11.2009 for filing reply by plaintiff to application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC of defendant No.1. Arguments on application dated 21.10.2009 of defendant No.1 will also be heard on the date fixed.” This is a classic example of misuse of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as vide order dated 9.10.2009, written request for adjournment made on behalf of the plaintiff was accepted and the case was adjourned for arguments on stay application and the undertaking given by defendant No.1 was ordered to be extended till the date of argument, whereas vide order dated 5.11.2009 request was accepted for adjournment of the case for arguments. On being questioned as to how the revision against the impugned orders was competent, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he is basically aggrieved by the order Annexure P.1 as the undertaking given by the petitioner was extended without his consent. Even otherwise, no undertaking was given by the petitioner. This plea on the face of it is misconceived. It is not in dispute CR No.6511 of 2009 3 that the petitioner had given an undertaking on the previous date, therefore, no fault can be found with the order passed by the learned court in extending said undertaking till disposal of the stay application. It was not necessary for the court to get a fresh undertaking from the petitioner as was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter referred to Annexure P.3 to contend that the application made by the petitioner for permission to sell the plot has not been decided which the court was under obligation to dispose of. This plea is again misconceived as the court is considering the stay application moved by the plaintiff/respondent, and has fixed the date for arguments. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the repeated adjournments were given by the learned court. However, it may be noticed here that the adjournment was granted in the presence of the counsel for the defendant/respondents. Nothing has been disclosed as to how adjournment granted was bad in law or whether it was opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to para No.4 of the application for permission to sell which reads as under to challenge the proceedings:- “ That on 9.10.2009, the plaintiff made a written request for adjournment and on the said request, this Hon'ble Court has been pleased to adjourn the proceedings for 4.12.2009 and from CR No.6511 of 2009 4 the record, it has been transpired that the statement given by the learned counsel on 18.09.2009 was till the next date i.e. 9.10.2009 and since on 9.10.2009, the request for adjournment came from the plaintiff, there was no justification for this Court to extend the undertaking and that too by adjourning the matter for a long date particularly when the request for adjournment came from the plaintiff. No Such undertaking was reiterated on 9.10.2009.” This contention is again misconceived. The learned court on undertaking of the petitioner had adjourned the case for arguments, therefore, while adjourning the case further the learned court was bound to extend the interim order as no prejudice could be caused to the plaintiff/respondent while adjourning the case for arguments. The revision petition being totally misconceived is ordered to be dismissed in limine. 10.11.2009 (Vinod K..Sharma) rp Judge