IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.5028 of 2004 Date of Decision:- 22.04.2008 Shanker Lal ....Petitioner(s) through Shri Akshay Bhan, Advocate vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) through Shri Deepak Jindal, AAG, Haryana. Shri Shailender Kashyap, Advocate for Shri Sandeep Godara, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.9.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul whereby on an appeal preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff, his application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC which was partly allowed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 10.1.2002, has been dismissed. It may be noticed here that the petitioner has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants which include the State of Haryana and the Market Committee, Narnaul etc. from constructing the metaled-road over thoroughfare bearing khasra No.3673 situated on the southern side of the agricultural land owned by him. Along with the said C.R.No.5028 of 2004 -2- civil suit, the petitioner-plaintiff moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC which was partly allowed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Narnaul vide his order dated 10.1.2002. Still dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul. It may be noticed here that no appeal was filed by the respondent-defendants against the above-mentioned order dated 10.1.2002 passed by the learned trial Court. However, vide his impugned order dated 29.9.2004, the learned appellate Court has not only dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, but his application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC has also been dismissed. In other words, whatever ad interim relief was granted to him by the learned trial Court, that has also been set aside even when no appeal was filed by the respondent-defendants. The appellate order, therefore, is liable to be set aside on this count alone. Consequently, the revision petition succeeds to the extent that the impugned order dated 29.9.2004 passed by the appellate Authority is set aside and it is directed that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 10.1.2002 passed by the learned trial Court, be decided afresh in accordance with law. Till then, status-quo as directed by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2004, shall continue to operate. April 22, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE