IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7489 of 2010 Date of decision: 27.05.2011. Municipal Council, Morinda ....................Petitioner v. Amita Rani .....................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Ashish Verma,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Defendant/Municipal Council, Morinda has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 24.12.2009, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar in appeal on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, therey restraining defendant/petitioner from interfering into the possession and raising of construction over the disputed property of/by respondent/plaintiff. It is stated that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendant/petitioner from interfering into her peaceful possession or obstructing the construction of a house in the suit property measuring 676 square feet described in the plaint. It is stated that the plaintiff had purchased the property vide registered sale deed dated 16.8.2008 from one Sukhdev Singh. The building plans, before construction, were duly sanctioned by the defendant/petitioner-Municipal Council. However, the defendant/Municipal Council realising that the property over which construction is being raised is partly situated in khasra no.3640 and 3638 under the ownership of Municipal Council, Morinda and Central Government respectively had sought to obstruct the construction. The learned trial court on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC had only directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the existing position at the spot during the pendency of the suit. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff, the learned appellate court has in view of the material placed on record permitted the plaintiff to carry on with the construction over the disputed property strictly according to the sanctioned site plan at her own risk and responsibility with the rider that in case it is proved that the plaintiff has no concern with the disputed property, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to any compensation from the defendant. Hence the present revision petition filed after a delay of more than one year. At the time of arguments learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner-Municipal Council has very fairly conceded that after passing of the impugned appellate order dated 24.12.2009 the respondent/plaintiff has raised construction and therefore this revision petition has become infructuous. In view of such circumstances and statement made by the learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner, nothing survives in the present revision petition which is dismissed as infructuous. 27.05.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge