Civil Revision No. 4244 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4244 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.07.2010 Sunil Maini ....Petitioner Versus Ashok Kumar ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: -Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.3.2010, passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the application moved by the plaintiff/respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stands allowed, and the petitioner has been restrained from raising construction on 7 marlas of land said to have been encroached by the petitioner. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction, directing the defendant/petitioner to remove the encroachment on 7 marlas of land. The case was based on demarcation, carried out showing that there was encroachment, by the petitioner. The suit was contested, wherein the defendant/petitioner denied any encroachment and raised a plea that the demarcation report being old could not form the basis for filing of the suit, nor could the petitioner be restrained from raising construction over the land, which is purchased by him from the plaintiff and his relations. Therefore, no prima facie case was made out in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence came Civil Revision No. 4244 of 2010 (O&M) -2- to the conclusion that the plaintiff/respondent has been able to make out a prima facie case and that he was likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury, in case, the petitioner was allowed to raise construction over the land, which is belonging to the plaintiff/respondent, and is in possession of the petitioner by way of encroachment. Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, does not challenge the impugned order on merits and prays that keeping in view the fact that the plaintiff/respondent is relying upon a demarcation, carried out about three years back that too at the back of the petitioner and that the petitioner, purchased the land from the plaintiff and his relations and has been restrained from using the land to best advantage, it would be in the interest of justice if this Court directs the learned trial Court to expedite the hearing of the case, and conclude it within six months. The prayer made deserves to be accepted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The plaintiff is only to prove, as to whether, there is any encroachment by the defendant/petitioner in order to succeed in the suit. While dismissing this revision petition as not pressed, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the case and decide it preferably within six months, of the receipt of certified copy of this order. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 14, 2010 R.S.