Civil Revision No. 4886 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4886 of 2009 Date of Decision: 28.8.2009 M/s Gupta Hotel ......Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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? Present: Shri Suman Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 17.8.2009, whereby an application filed by the petitioner to decide an application for demarcation of the suit property and for ad-interim mandatory injunction for restoration of possession was dismissed. It has been found by the learned trial Court that earlier the suit was dismissed as not maintainable. The matter was remitted back by the High Court for fresh decision. It is further found that there is a direction to decide the suit upto 4.5.2010 and the plaintiff is gaining time by moving miscellaneous applications time and again. The grievance of the petitioner is that an application for Civil Revision No. 4886 of 2009 (2) demarcation was filed by the plaintiff before the plaint was rejected. The said application was fixed for arguments on 8.1.2004. On the said date an additional issue regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court was framed and on such issue, the plaint was rejected on 29.01.2004. It is, thus, contended that the application for demarcation was never decided by the learned trial Court prior to the rejection of the plaint. Thus, the Court has erred in law in rejecting the application for deciding the application for demarcation. The effect of the order dated 17.8.2009 is that an application to seek demarcation stands dismissed. The rejection of an application for demarcation is not a case decided which can be challenged by way of revision as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Balbir Dewan Cold Storage and General Mills v. Naveen Chander 1989(1) PLR 677. The argument that the petitioner is entitled to ad-interim mandatory injunction was declined for the reason that earlier application for ad-interim injunction has already been dismissed by the Court. If the petitioner was not found entitled to ad-interim prohibitory injunction, the petitioner cannot be found entitled to ad-interim mandatory injunction in respect of the same property. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 28.8.2009 ds