Paramjit Singh And Another v. Manpreet Singh And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-19.03.2026 Paramjit Singh and another ......Petitioners

Versus

Manpreet Singh and others ......Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL ****

Present:

Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral) 1.

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, for setting aside the impugned order dated 03.05.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, whereby the learned Additional District Judge has declined to grant an ad interim ex parte injunction. Further prayer is made to issue directions to learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, to decide the application in a time bound manner.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners-Paramjit Singh and another, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents on 15.07.2021 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phul, District Bathinda. Notice of the said suit was issued to the respondents/defendants, who contested the same by filing a joint written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, as many as four issues including relief were framed. The parties led their respective evidence and, ultimately, the suit was dismissed vide

judgment and decree dated 24.12.2024. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 24.12.2024, the present petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Bathinda, along with an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The said appeal was assigned to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda. Vide the impugned order dated 03.05.2025, the learned Additional District Judge observed that, at this stage, no ground is made out for grant of an ad interim injunction and, accordingly, deemed it appropriate to issue notice to the opposite party.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have already put in appearance before the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda; however, the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is still pending adjudication. A limited prayer is made that the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, be directed to decide the said application within a stipulated time frame.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the paper book.

5.

In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with, as the same would only delay the proceedings and entail unnecessary expenses. 6.

Considering the averments made in the petition, the present revision petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the

merits of the case, learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, is directed to dispose of the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month from today.

7.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE 19.03.2026.

anil Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No