IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 1967 of 2005. Date of Decision: 22nd April, 2009. Prashant Gupta ..Petitioner through Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advocate Versus Municipal Council, Narnaul & Anr. ...Respondents through Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 24.1.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent – Municipal Council, Narnaul against the order dated 25.3.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge [Senior Division], Narnaul has been accepted and while setting aside the said order, application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, has been dismissed. Vide order dated 25.3.2002, learned Civil Judge [Senior Division], Narnaul restrained the Municipal Council, Narnaul from interfering in possession of the petitioner over the suit property as well as from demolishing the construction of the boundary wall over the subject property. The respondent Municipal Council was also restrained from interfering in the ingress and outgress of the petitioner-plaintiff. While issuing notice of motion, this Court vide order dated 7.4.2005 stayed operation of the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge,. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.1.2007 the Revision Petition was admitted and interim order dated 7.4.2005 was modified to the extent that the respondents would be allowed to execute the eviction order dated 6.12.1999 passed by the Collector under the Public Premises [Eviction of unauthorized Occupants] Act, 1971 against Gulab Devi from whom the plaintiff- petitioner is stated to have purchased the subject property. It would, thus, be seen that there is an ad-interim injunction in favour of the petitioner since March, 2002. The record further reveals that the civil suit was filed on 25.1.2002. By now, there is a possibility that the suit might have been decided on merits. However, even if the same is still pending, in my considered view, interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner deserves to operate during the pendency thereof for the reason that the said ad- interim injunction was granted by the learned trial Court more than seven years back. Any observation touching the merits of the case, if made by this Court at this stage, is also likely to prejudice the case of either of the parties. Consequently, without going into the merits of this revision petition, the same is disposed of with a direction that the modified interim order dated 27.1.2007 shall continue to operate till the decision of the suit. Learned trial Court shall make an endeavour to decide the suit, if still pending, within a period of six months. April 22, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE