IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (111) CR No.3527 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.07.2025 Saurav …Petitioner Versus Balwinder Kumar and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner (through video conference). **** VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) 1. This is a petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar vide which ex parte injunction was not granted. 2. The petitioner-plaintiff instituted a suit (Annexure P-7) for separate possession by way of partition of suit land (fully described in the plaint) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Dusarna, Teshil Kharar, District SAS Nagar Mohali. Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or changing the nature of the suit property was also sought. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC (Annexure P-6) was also moved. Upon the suit having been presented, the trial Court chose to issue notice to the other side for the very next day i.e. 17.04.2025. On 17.04.2025, the trial Court recorded that it would hear the opposite party before the grant of ad interim injunction. Thereafter, the matter remained pending for service of the defendants which is stated to have been completed in the last date of hearing i.e. 07.07.2025. REKHA SHARMA 2025.07.17 22:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CR No.3527 of 2025 -2- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer to the issuance for a direction to the Court concerned to hear and decide the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in a time bound manner. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the interlocutory orders placed on record, this Court does not find any laxity on the part of the Court in dealing with the matter. However, the matter is now stated to have been adjourned to 27.08.2025. It has to be borne in mind that valuable rights of parties are involved, and therefore, prayers for interim relief should be dealt with expeditiously. That being so, the present revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar where Civil Suit No.448 of 2025 i.e. Saurav Vs. Balwinder Kumar to hear and decide the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 expeditiously. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE July 11, 2025 Rekha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No REKHA SHARMA 2025.07.17 22:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh