IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3590 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 7.9.2009 Smt. Sunita Nangia and another … Petitioners Versus Manjit Singh and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Sandeep Varmani, Advocate for the respondents. Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the orders dated 4.9.2008 passed by the learned courts below vide which application moved by the plaintiff-respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was allowed and the petitioner herein was restrained from using premises for any other purpose except godown. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends, that impugned orders cannot be sustained, as learned courts below have wrongly restrained the petitioner from using a telephone in the godwon. The contention is that use of telephone cannot be a ground to hold that petitioner is using the premises for the purpose other than the godown. Notice was issued. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed on record order passed by this Court on 6.7.2009 in CWP No.9300 of 2009 which reads as under:- “Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is not using and will not use, the basement in question, except for storage purposes. Notice of motion. CR No.3590 of 2009 At the asking of the Court. Mr.K.K.Gupta, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He is directed to intimate this Court on 6.7.2009 as to within how much time, the appellant authority will decide the appeal filed by the petitioner and the landlord of the building, in dispute.” The reading of order shows that a specific undertaking was given by the petitioner. In view of undertaking of the petitioner in writ petition, no ground is made out to interfere with the orders passed by learned courts below. Dismissed. [ Vinod K. Sharma ] Judge 07.09.2009 sd 2