C.R. No. 2764 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2764 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.5.2009 M/s ITC Limited ....Petitioner Versus Mr. Shibashish Chatterjee ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J **** The only prayer made in the present petition is for a direction to learned Court below to decide the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in a suit filed by the respondent for permanent injunction. Further prayer is for direction for early disposal of the application for mesne profits by the petitioner in a suit filed by it with regard to the same property. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent was working as Manager 'D' level with the petitioner company, whose services were terminated in April 10, 2007. He had been granted residential accommodation at Gurgaon as a Licencee. After termination of his services he had no right to retain the possession thereof and was required to hand over the vacant possession to the petitioner. However, he filed a suit for permanent injunction on April 30, 2007 in which the petitioner company filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. Besides that the petitioner company also filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction on August 24, 2007 seeking possession of the house. Along with the suit, an application for grant of mesne profits was also filed. Though the dispute in both the suits was pertaining to the same property but both were being posted for hearing for different dates, though pending in the same Court. The suit filed by the respondent was C.R. No. 2764 of 2009 (O&M) 2 adjourned for consideration on application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on January 16, 2009 for May 29, 2009 whereas the suit filed by the petitioner for mandatory injunction was adjourned on March 18, 2009 to April 13, 2009 and thereafter to August 12, 2009. Prayer is that the applications filed in both the suits, which are pending for long and being adjourned only, be decided at an early date as the respondent has not challenged his termination before any authority and the house was granted to him only on account of his employment with the petitioner. As the relief claimed by the counsel in the present petition is innocuous, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondent as the same will not prejudice him in any manner. Considering the aforesaid facts and also that two suits pertaining to the same property are pending before the same Court but for different dates, I deem it appropriate to direct the Court below to fix both the suits on the same date and decide the application for interim relief as well as for rejection of plaint on or before 15th June 2009. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. (RAJESH BINDAL) 15.5.2009 JUDGE Reema