IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4239 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: March 07, 2011 Umed Singh and another .. Petitioners Vs. Prem Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. K.S. Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sushil Sardana, Advocate for the respondents No.1, 2 and 4 to 16. Mr. Manoj Makkar, Advocate for the respondent No.3. A.N. Jindal, J This petition assails the order dated 31.3.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rohtak, adjourning the execution application sine die and refusing to issue warrant of possession. The petitioners- decree holders along with Sheoji Ram had obtained a final decree on 9.9.1989 regarding which the execution was preferred by them. During the pendency of the execution application, one application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by Prem Singh etc. and another application was filed by Parkash Singh and others. Both these applications were allowed vide order dated 23.7.2004. Similarly, two applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC for stay of execution proceedings were also filed. Both the said application were also allowed vide order dated 23.7.2004 and the injunction regarding dispossession was granted. The appeal against the order dated 23.7.2004 staying the execution was filed, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak on 19.11.2004. Thereafter, a revision petition No.1777 of 2005 was filed by Sheoji Ram and others wherein this Court passed the following order :- Civil Revision No. 4239 of 2010 (O&M) -2- *** “Present: Mr. G.S. Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate respondents No.9 to 194. Admitted. To be heard along with C.R. No.4784 of 2004. Operation of the impugned order dated 23.7.2004 shall remain stayed in the meanwhile. Sd/- Sept. 5, 2006 Hemant Gupta Judge” The title of the Civil Revision No.4787 of 2004 as under : “Rajbir etc. vs. Prem Singh etc.” The said revision petitions are still pending adjudication. Similar revisions were filed against the order of injunction wherein the operation of the order was stayed on 5.9.2006. However, vide order dated 10.3.2006 in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the parties that he does not want to press the revision petition in respect of the order dated 23.7.2004 whereby ad-interim injunction was granted against the petitioners, the court dismissed the revision petition having been withdrawn. Thus, in the light of the revision petition having been withdrawn by the petitioners in respect of the order regarding injunction, warrant of possession could not be issued as the injunction regarding dispossession was in operation. Consequently, the trial court was right in adjourning the petition sine die on account of order of stay being in operation. No merits. Dismissed. March 07, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge