Raj Singh v. Sandeep Kumari And ORS.

C.R. No.6382 of 2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6382 of 2016 Date of Decision.24.09.2016 Raj Singh .......Petitioner Vs.

Sandeep Kumari and others ........Respondents

Present:

Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved of the impugned order (Annexure P-8) whereby the misc. appeal filed against the order passed by the trial Court on 10.08.2016 declining the ad interim injuntion in the suit filed for permanent injunction, has been admitted. Mr. Deepak Arora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the application for stay has been filed but the lower Appellate Court has not taken the congnizance.

On having confronted Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate as to why steps have not been taken to bring this fact to the notice of the Court by moving appropriate application, the answer is that the concerned Presiding Officer was on leave. Nothing prevented him to approach the District Judge in that eventuality. However, in the interest of justice, if application for stay is moved, in the pending appeal within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and the Court shall make endeavour to decide the ad interim application or the appeal, whatever it may deem appropriate, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one month thereafter. PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.09.28 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

C.R. No.6382 of 2016 -2The revision petition is disposed of with the above direction. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE September 24, 2016 Pankaj* Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.09.28 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document