CR No.556 of 2006 - 1 - In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 06.09.2010 Ram Avtar ... Petitioner Versus Secretary Municipal Committee, Mohindergarh and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate,for the petitioner. None for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): The plaintiff-petitioner filed a Civil Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mohindergarh. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for grant of interim injunction in terms of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a restraint order against the defendants from interferring in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the shop No.47 situated in Shopping Complex, Mohindergarh, till the final decision of the suit. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 12.09.2003 allowed this application and restrained the defendants from interferring in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff or forcibly dispossessing him from the shop in dispute till the final decision of the case subject to payment of rent. While granting injunction, the learned Trial Court held that the plaintiff is in possession of the shop and the order of cancellation of allotment dated 13.07.1998 has been passed without being confirmed by the Commissioner. CR No.556 of 2006 - 2 - It has also been observed that the shop was duly allotted to the plaintiff vide Resolution No.44 dated 25.04.1995 and the subsequent resolutions adopted by the Municipal Committee. The order passed by the learned trial Court came to be challenged in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul. The Lower Appellate Court vide the impugned order dated 29.10.2005 vacated the interim order passed by the learned trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Raj Kumar Gupta and perused the orders passed by the learned Courts below. It is seen that the learned Lower Appellate Court has vacated the interim stay even while confirming the status-quo qua possession of the petitioner. The relevant observations are contained in paragraph 10 of the impugned order which reads as under:- “Under the circumstances, I am of the confirmed view that equity demands that status quo qua possession be ordered to be maintained till the subsistence of allotment. It is made clear that if the action of Deputy Commissioner cancelling the allotment of the several shops mentioned in order dated 13.7.98 is confirmed by the Commissioner, then this order shall stand vacated and respondent- plaintiff shall in that eventuality be entitled to refund of Rs.40,000/- deposited by him with Municipal Committee, Mohindergarh, within a period of one month.” CR No.556 of 2006 - 3 - It has also been observed by the learned Lower Appellate Court that the petitioner is in possession of the shop on the strength of resolutions adopted by the Municipal Committee. No reasons whatsoever have been recorded for vacation of the interim order. To the contrary, in the initial part of paragraph 10, the learned Lower Appellate Court has confirmed the possession of the petitioner by granting status-quo and in the same breath it vacated the interim order without recording any reason, what to say of any valid reason. The impugned order, thus, suffers from inherent infirmity and being without any lawful reason is liable to be set aside. In view of the above, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court is set aside and the order passed by the learned Trial Court shall stand restored. No costs. 06.09.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE