Civil Revision No.5213 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5213 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision:28.09.2011 Jitender ......Petitioner Versus Gulab Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the respondents. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) As is evident from the record that the trial Court accepted the application, for ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, filed by Jatinder son of Gulab Singh-petitioner-plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff) against Gulab Singh, his father and brothers-respondent- defendants(for short “the defendants”), by way of order dated 21.08.2007, which in substance is as under:- “It is apparently seen here that the main dispute is among the partners of the firm, if the last partnership dated 17.2.1997 is illegal or not is a fact to be decided on the basis of the evidence of the parties. Meaning thereby at this stage, as per Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, both the parties restrained from alienating the suit property without prior permission of the court, till the final decision of the case. So far as prima facie case and the balance of conveniency and irreparable loss is concerned, these are standing in favour of the plaintiffs regarding this property but in regard to the other relief, the same are not found maintainable in favour of the plaintiff and as such the application is accordingly partly admitted.” Civil Revision No.5213 of 2008(O&M) 2 2. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the defendants filed the appeal, which was accepted by the first Appellate Court, by means of impugned order dated 09.08.2008. 3. The petitioner-plaintiff did not feel satisfied with the impugned order of the first Appellate Court and preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. At the very outset, learned counsel has submitted that the respondent- defendants did not have any objection, if the impugned order of the first Appellate Court is set aside and direction is issued to the trial Court, to dispose of the main suit expeditiously. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff did not raise any objection in this relevant connection. 6. In this view of the matter, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. The impugned order dated 09.08.2008 of the first Appellate Court is hereby set aside and that of the trial Court is restored, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 7. However, taking into consideration the nature of litigation and urgency of the matter, the trial Court is directed to decide the main suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year. September 28, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE