IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5805 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 8th July, 2010 Harbans Kaur … Petitioner Versus Punjab Wakf Board Chandigarh and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Kewal Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondents No.2 to 5. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Punjab Wakf Board, through its Estate Officer, filed a suit for possession of the property No.2255 measuring 361.12 square yards. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was also filed with a prayer that the defendants be restrained from alienating the property and from raising any construction thereupon, so that the nature of the property, during the pendency of the suit, is not changed. Vide the impugned order at Annexure P-1, during the pendency of the suit, the Court has restrained the defendants from alienating in any manner or raising any construction on the suit property. Civil Revision No.5805 of 2009 (O&M) Aggrieved against that order, one of the defendants to the suit has filed the present revision petition, wherein it has been pleaded that the defendants, being very poor persons, are in possession of just 27 square yards of the land (12 feet x 22 feet) and they are raising construction upon the same after getting the building plan sanctioned from the Nagar Council, Barnala. It is further stated that they have also raised a loan from State Bank of Patiala at Barnala and the building material has also been purchased. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the other defendants are very poor persons and it will be very harsh upon them in case they are ordered to pay the installments without any roof on their head. Learned counsel further submits that they may be permitted to raise construction at their own risk and if they fail in the suit, they are even prepared to bear the cost of removal of such construction. A statement to this effect was also noticed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in order dated October 9, 2009. In these circumstances, after hearing counsel for the parties, the order of interim injunction is hereby modified to the extent that the petitioner and other defendants shall be permitted to raise construction at their own risk and they will file an undertaking before the Court that in case they fail in the suit, the construction can be removed at their cost. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in ‘Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot v. Baldev Dass’ 2005 (1) Civil Court Cases 430 (SC), wherein it was held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court would not have permitted the respondent to change the nature of property by putting-up construction as also by permitting alienation of the property. 2 Civil Revision No.5805 of 2009 (O&M) The concluding portion of the judgment states that the order was passed in the facts and circumstances of that case. Taking into consideration the fact that it is an area of only 27 square yards and the petitioner and other defendants are very poor persons and that they have obtained a loan, it can be safely inferred that the facts and circumstances of the present case are different. Counsel for the respondent No.1 prays that in the facts and circumstances of the case the trial Court may be directed to decide the suit within a specified timeframe. Counsel for the petitioner has no objection thereto. Therefore, the trial Court is directed to decide the suit within nine months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, after affording three effective opportunities to both the parties for leading their evidence. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 8, 2010 rps 3