IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 5771 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.9.2009 Kuldeep Bhargava ....Petitioner. Versus Ram Nath Bhargava and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 7. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff-petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.10.2007 passed by the lower appellate court whereby the order of the trial court dated 7.3.2005 granting ad interim injunction and staying the dispossession of the petitioner was set aside and the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff was in actual physical possession of the property in dispute and had been paying the mesne profits to the defendants for the use and occupation of the premises. Learned counsel further submitted that the said fact regarding payment of the mesne profits to the defendant- respondents was not denied by them in the written statement. He has C.R. No. 5771 of 2007 -2- referred to para 3 of the written statement filed by the defendant- respondents. Learned counsel also submitted that the suit was filed in the year 2004 and this Court on November 6, 2007 while issuing notice of motion had stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 17.10.2007. Learned counsel prayed that the said order may be made absolute during the pendency of the suit and the revision petition may be disposed of directing the trial court to decide the suit expeditiously. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 7 has not been able to dispute the aforesaid factual position. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the file. I find that the prayer made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner is justified. Accordingly, keeping in view the fact that the order dated 6.11.2007 passed by this Court staying the operation of the impugned order dated 17.10.2007 has been continuing since then, the same is made absolute and shall remain operative during the pendency of the suit. However, in the interest of justice, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously preferably by 31.12.2010. Nothing observed in this order shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. September 10, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE