Civil Revision No.332 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.332 of 2008 Date of decision: 19.2.2009 Chander Pal ...Petitioner Versus Raminder Singh Sodhi ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. H.N.S.Gill, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. T.P.S.Tung, Advocate for the respondent. S.D.ANAND, J. The learned Trial Court, while allowing the application under Sections 94/151 of the C.P.C. in favour of respondent, directed the petitioner before this Court to restore possession of the shop to the former. It is apparent from the record that there is a factual controversy about whether the respondent had ever been in possession of that shop or not. There is also a controversy about whether the respondent delivered possession of the premises under reference to the petitioner during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings (which were being conducted by the police into a complaint by the petitioner before this Court to the effect that a lock had been forcibly put on the premises by the respondent). All these are disputed questions of fact which have to be disposed of in the first instance before the Court could arrive at a finding about which party exactly was in possession of the shop under reference. The Court did not record any evidence whatsoever in this case. Civil Revision No.332 of 2008 -2- **** The petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Trial Court to dispose of the application under Sections 94/151 C.P.C. afresh after affording opportunity to the parties to produce evidence in support of their respective factual pleas. In order to allay the apprehension expressed on behalf of the respondent that matter may be got inordinately delayed, it is directed that the application shall be disposed of by the learned Trial Court within one month from the next date of hearing. Both the parties shall be entitled two adjournments each. It follows therefrom that the learned trial Court shall have to compulsively give only week long adjournment. If any party requires the assistance of the Court in the form of summonses for summoning of an official witness or otherwise, it shall be entitled to have that facility. However, the non return or non execution of the process shall be no excuse for any further adjournment. February 19, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge