CM No.5229-CII-2010 and -1- CR No.5748 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CM No.5229-CII-2010 and CR No.5748 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 04.03.2010 **** Gurinderjit Singh and another . . . . Petitioners VS. Karamjeet Singh and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Arun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.V.K. Shukla, Advocate for respondent No.4. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) CM No.5229-CII-2010 Allowed as prayed for. CR No.5748 of 2009 This Revision petition is against order dated 24.8.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Moga whereby, while adjourning the case for hearing an application filed under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’), he vacated the stay already granted. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is an irregularity and illegality in the impugned order as the application filed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC was yet to be considered when the stay already granted was vacated. It is also submitted that CM No.5229-CII-2010 and -2- CR No.5748 of 2009 if the stay was to be vacated on the same day then there was no question of adjourning the case for 24.9.2009 for the purpose of hearing application filed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. I find force in the arguments raised by the petitioners. There is a patent error in the impugned order passed by the learned Court below because status quo order was extended on 13.6.2009 upto 24.8.2009. Learned Court below should not have vacated the stay when application filed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC was kept for hearing. In view of the above discussion, order dated 24.8.2009, insofar as it relates to vacation of stay is concerned, is hereby set aside. Learned Court below is directed to hear the application filed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC and decide the same in accordance with law. Revision Petition is disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) March 04, 2010 JUDGE vivek