CR No.3944 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3944 of 2009 Date of Decision: 17 - 7 - 2009 Yash Pal ....Petitioner v. Municipal Council Jaitu and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.R.K.Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (ORAL) Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Faridkot while dismissing application of the petitioner under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC held that Municipal Committee is going to construct the urinal and public toilet for public use on demand of general public in the market. The Court further took into consideration that the work of construction is for the benefit of general public and for welfare of the customers who visit the market. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in declining the prayer for issuance of injunction at the instance of the petitioner. In appeal, District Judge, Faridkot not only concurred with the findings of the trial Court but further held that urinals are being constructed for general public, on the drain itself. The observations of two Courts below cannot be held to be perverse. CR No.3944 of 2009 [2] Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the urinals are constructed, his suit will be rendered infructuous. He further stated that petitioner is ready and willing to produce his entire evidence on the next two dates of hearing. Therefore, it is ordered that trial Court shall give short adjournments and on two opportunities to be exercised by the petitioner, he shall conclude his entire evidence and the suit shall be decided within six months. Counsel further state that as a matter of caution anything said herein should not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case. Any order passed on the injunction application during the pendency of the suit, needless to say will not have any bearing on merits of the main case. Petition stand disposed off. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) July 17, 2009. JUDGE RC