Civil Revision No. 243 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 243 of 2009 Date of decision: 21.01.2009 Bhupinder Singh ...Petiitioner Versus Harvinder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Chanchal K.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. Plaintiff-Harvinder Singh filed a suit for a declaration that the selection of respondent no.2 as a Salesman was illegal inasmuch as the selection process by which respondent no.2 (Bhupinder Singh) had been appointed was void and unlawful/unfair and against the principle of natural justice. The respondent no.1-Harvinder Singh also sought the restraint of respondents No.1 and 3 from allowing respondent no.2 to join as a Salesman and also applied for a mandatory injunction for a direction to respondents no.1 and 3 to appoint the petitioner (Harvinder Singh) as a Salesman and to allow him to join that post. That suit was decreed in his favour by the learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 23.5.2008. Defendant -petitioner Bhupinder Singh filed an appeal against impugned judgment and decree before the learned District Judge, Patiala. Civil Revision No. 243 of 2009 -2- **** In that appeal, he also filed an application for the stay of operation of the impugned judgment and decree whereby his services had been terminated. The plea was declined by the learned Ist Appellate court by observing that service of the appellant having already been terminated on 23.5.2008 and successful plaintiff having already joined that post on 18.7.2008, the requested interim relief could not be granted. Since the impugned decree stands effectuated, the clock cannot be put back. A restraint plea would be competent only if the act to be restrained has not yet been effected. In the present case, the decree has been given effect to inasmuch as the services of defendant/petitioner were terminated on 23.5.2008 and respondent-plaintiff has already joined on 18.7.2008. These facts are noticed in the impugned order itself. The petition is held to be completely devoid of merit and ordered to be dismissed in limine. However, in response to a verbal plea, it is directed that the learned Ist Appellate court shall dispose of the appeal itself within six months from the next date of hearing. This order is granted in view of the fact that fate of the appeal would, in all probability, turn upon the legal interpretation of the Rules under reference. January 21, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge