IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1040 of 2009 Date of decision:-26.02.2009. Kamla Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Rathee, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondents. JASWANT SINGH J.(Oral) By filing this revision petition, petitioner, who is an elected Municipal Councillor of Municipal Council, Jhajjar, has prayed for setting aside the order dated 24.02.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar whereby the ad-interim injunction granted in the subsequent suit filed by her, wherein challenge has been made to the notice dated 17.10.2008 for convening the meeting on 17.11.2008 for consideration of No Confidence Motion, has been ordered to be vacated while adjourning the hearing on the main injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, for 07.03.2009 on account of no arguments being advanced on behalf of plaintiff. Learned counsel submits that the adjournment was sought on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff as the case had been preponed for hearing and the learned Court without acceeding to the request and without adverting to the prima facie merits of the case has illegally vacated the ad-interim injunction. Notice of the revision petition to the respondents. Mr. Anil Rathee, Addl. A.G. Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the written statement to the suit as well as reply to the injunction application under Order 39 C.R. No. 1040 of 2009 2 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC had already been filed by the State wherein it has been stated that in pursuance to the notice dated 17.10.2008, a meeting of the Members of the Municipal Council, Jhajjar had taken place on 17.11.2008 whereby a resolution by majority had been passed and the petitioner-plaintiff was removed from the office of the President, Municipal Council, Jhajjar. He, however, has no answer to the basis, as to what exactly weighed with the learned Trial Court while vacating the ad-interim injunction vide impugned order dated 24.02.2009. Learned counsel further submits the fact that ad-interim injunction has been vacated on 24.02.2009, would prejudice his case for hearing on the injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, which is now fixed for 07.03.2009. Learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana states that mere vacation of ad interim injunction can possibly have no effect on the merits of the injunction application fixed for 7.3.2009. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC fixed for 07.03.2009, may be ordered to be decided in accordance with law, and vacation of the ad-interim stay by the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 24.02.2009 shall have no adverse effect thereupon. In view of the aforesaid consensus, the learned Trial Court is directed to decide the application of the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC possibly on 07.03.2009 itself or within next three days. While deciding the said application, the learned Trial Court will not be influenced, in any manner, by vacation of the ad interim injunction, vide its order dated 24.2.2009. The present revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. Copy of the order be given under the signature of Bench Secretary. February 26, 2009 (JASWANT SINGH) vj JUDGE