Civil Revision No.3671 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.15315-CII of 2009 and Civil Revision No.3671 of 2009 Date of Decision:24.08.2009 Parmod Kumari .....Petitioner versus State Bank of India and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr.Dheeraj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.M.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. None for the other respondents. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral) C.M.No.15315-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. Civil Revision No.3671 of 2009 In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff-petitioner has raised a grievance against the order dated 24.06.2009 passed by the trial Court whereby an application filed by her for grant of injunction was declined; and the order 27.06.2009 vide which the appeal challenging the order passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court on the ground of non- maintainability. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner states that the suit is Civil Revision No.3671 of 2009 2 fixed for 16.09.2009 before the trial Court for service of the unserved defendants. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the defendant-respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall put in appearance before the trial Court on the said date. Since, no final decision has been taken on the interim injunction application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner, this revision petition may be disposed of by directing the trial Court to decide the said application expeditiously after hearing the counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner does not raise any serious objection to the aforesaid prayer made by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. He, however, states that till the application is decided by the trial Court, the plaintiff-petitioner may not be dispossessed from the property in dispute. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the present revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the application for interim injunction on merits, in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. However, till the said application is decided, the plaintiff-petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the property in dispute. It is, however, made clear that nothing observed in this order shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 16.09.2009, the date already fixed in the suit. August 24, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) seema JUDGE