C.R. No.1543 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1543 of 2008 (O&M). Decided on July 21, 2009. Municipal Corporation and another. .. Petitioners-defendants VERSUS Shailender Singh. .. Plaintiff-respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants-defendants. None for the respondent-plaintiff. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The courts below have allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, read with Section 151 CPC, filed by the plaintiff-respondent directing not to take any steps to give effect to cancellation order dated 19.02.2007 and to maintain status quo regarding the suit property during pendency of the suit. Counsel for defendants-petitioners has vehemently contended that the plot allotted to the plaintiff- C.R. No.1543 of 2008 (O&M) -2- respondent stands already cancelled and the validity of the order of cancellation dated 19.02.2007, has not been challenged by the plaintiff, as such, the grant of interim relief to the plaintiff- respondent will prejudice the rights of the Municipal Corporation. It has also been argued that no legal right is vested in the plaintiff-respondent by depositing a sum of Rs.3,56,363/- on 23.10.2006 and the cancellation order has been passed in accordance with law. I have heard counsel for the petitioners- defendants and gone through the impugned order carefully. The short question which is required to be determined in the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent is, whether the plaintiff- respondent had not been issued any notice demanding 75 per cent of the balance amount of the sale consideration of the plot sold to him. In case the plot in dispute is further alienated to a third party, the rights of the plaintiff-respondent might be prejudiced. Order of the Courts below to maintain status quo regarding the suit property during pendency of the suit seems to be an appropriate order. Counsel for the petitoners-defendants has submitted that the Civil Court does not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. This plea may be taken up by the petitioner-defendant Municipal Corporation before the trial Court. C.R. No.1543 of 2008 (O&M) -3- No ground is made out for interference. However, it is observed that deposit of Rs.3,56,363/- on 23.10.2006, will not be deemed to have conferred any right on the plaintiff-respondent. The trial Court is directed to decide the suit within a period of one year after the next date of hearing fixed before the said Court. Disposed of. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE July 21, 2009. rkarora