IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1258 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 29th August, 2011 M/s Rohit Timbers … Appellant Versus Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sudhir Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present regular second appeal has been filed by plaintiff to the suit, i.e. M/s Rohit Timbers through one of its partners namely Naresh Lumba. The appellant-plaintiff has lost in two rounds of litigation. Briefly stated, the appellant-plaintiff had instituted a suit for permanent injunction seeking declaration to the effect that notice(s) dated 25th July, 1997 issued by the respondent-defendant Municipal Corporation, Faridabad is/are illegal, arbitrary and without any authority. Furthermore, the Municipal Corporation and the Director, Town and Country Planning, Faridabad had no right or title to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff. As a consequential relief, the appellant-plaintiff had also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Regular Second Appeal No.1258 of 2010 (O&M) Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff, has very fairly stated that having lost in two courts below, he is conscious that in the present regular second appeal, the appellant-plaintiff cannot succeed, therefore, he has prayed to this Court that he be permitted to modify his prayer. Counsel has urged that six months time be granted to the appellant-plaintiff to shift the business of saw-mill carried by him from the residential area. Mr. Sudhir Hooda, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, has stated that the appellant-plaintiff- Firm is running the business of sale of timber in contravention of the permitted use of the area/plot. It is submitted that the appellant-plaintiff is carrying on a commercial activity in the residential area, which is not permissible. However, Mr.Hooda has not opposed the request made by counsel for the appellant to shift the business from the demised premises and to restore residential character/nature of the property. After hearing counsel for the parties, present appeal is disposed of by directing that in case the appellant-plaintiff furnishes a specific undertaking in one month from today in the Executing Court that he will shift his business of sale of timber from the demised premises and will restore its character/nature to residential, the impugned notice (s) issued by Municipal Corporation, Faridabad for removal of the unauthorized saw-mill shall be kept in abeyance for six months. However, in case the appellant-plaintiff, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, fails to act in consonance with the undertaking so furnished, the respondent- defendant Municipal Corporation, Faridabad will be well within its rights 2 Regular Second Appeal No.1258 of 2010 (O&M) to proceed against the appellant-plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of law. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 29, 2011 rps 3