Civil Revision No. 6872 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6872 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 9th, 2011 Megha Singh .... Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat, Mander Kalan and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. The plaintiff has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 3.10.2011 (Annexure P4), vide which learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur has issued notice of the suit as well as the stay application. The petitioner has sought directions to the trial court to decide the application (Annexure P3) for ad interim injunction forthwith and has prayed for restraining the respondents from interfering in the said property. The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making any street or drainage through the land of khasra no. 121//7(3 kanals 2 marlas) described as gair mumkin abadi in Civil Revision No. 6872 of 2011 2 .. the revenue record and making the same pucca on the plea that he is owner in possession thereof and the defendants wanted to make a street or drain through his land without acquiring it in any manner. I have heard Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order giving notice of the application for ad interim injunction to the defendants without either granting the desired ad interim injunction order or declining the same falls under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC and no appeal against the said order lies. According to him, only revision lies against the said order, which has been filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned trial court should have taken into consideration the urgency of the matter where on the private property of the petitioner, Gram Panchayat, Mander Kalan, through its Sarpanch was trying to carve out a street or dig a drainage and make it pucca. According to him, Smt. Roop Kaur, the Sarpanch of the village was opposed by the petitioner at the time of election and she is now working against the plaintiff on account of the said grudge. When a person comes with such an urgent matter, the court is not to take it lightly. The matter should be considered at the time of filing of the suit itself and in appropriate cases, the ad interim injunction order could be granted till the defendants appear and oppose the same. In the case in hand, copy of jamabandi for the year 2008-09 is stated to have been filed before learned trial court which records the plaintiff-petitioner to be a co-sharer in the land of khasra No. 121//7, which is recorded to Civil Revision No. 6872 of 2011 3 .. be in possession of the owners. There is no reference of any proceedings on account of which the property has come to vest in the Gram Panchayat. In these circumstances, the court should decide the question of ad interim injunction with all promptitude and should protect the rights of the plaintiff by making suitable ad interim injunction order. In these circumstances, the revision petition is disposed of with direction to learned trial court to decide the application of the petitioner- plaintiff for ad interim injunction as expeditiously as possible and directing the parties in the meanwhile to maintain status quo regarding the nature of the suit property. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE November 9th, 2011 som