CR-5525-2025 (O&M) 111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Balwant Singh Kulwinder Singh and CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Ankush Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present civil revision petition Constitution of India the learned Court below to finally dispose of the application of ad injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as, ‘CPC’) filed by th the Civil suit for possession by way of specific performance as well as for permanent injunction. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the suit was filed in the year 2021. He further contends that the learned Court below granted the ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff vide order dated 11.08.2021. It is further the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/defen application of ad been decided. (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : VERSUS Kulwinder Singh and Others CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Ankush Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. The present civil revision petition Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/ the learned Court below to finally dispose of the application of ad injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as, ‘CPC’) filed by the respondent/plaintiff in the year 2021 along with the Civil suit for possession by way of specific performance as well as for permanent injunction. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the suit was filed in He further contends that the learned Court below granted the ex interim injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff vide order dated 11.08.2021. It is further the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/defendant No.1 has already filed the reply and till date the application of ad-interim injunction filed under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 CPC has not -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5525-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 19.08.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Ankush Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the has been filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 for directing the learned Court below to finally dispose of the application of ad-interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter e respondent/plaintiff in the year 2021 along with the Civil suit for possession by way of specific performance as well as for Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the suit was filed in He further contends that the learned Court below granted the ex interim injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff vide order dated 11.08.2021. It is further the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that dant No.1 has already filed the reply and till date the interim injunction filed under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 CPC has not - under Article 227 of the for directing interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter e respondent/plaintiff in the year 2021 along with the Civil suit for possession by way of specific performance as well as for Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the suit was filed in He further contends that the learned Court below granted the ex- interim injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff vide order dated 11.08.2021. It is further the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that dant No.1 has already filed the reply and till date the interim injunction filed under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 CPC has not TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5525-2025 (O&M) -2- 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have gone through the record with his able assistance. 4. Vide ex-parte order dated 11.08.2021, the Court had retrained the defendants not to sell, alienate, transfer the suit property to anybody else except the plaintiff and also restrained to not change the nature of suit property in any manner. After filing of the reply to the application, the trial Court is required to adjudicate upon the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, which is stated to be still pending despite the lapse of 4 years. 5. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and without going into the merits of the case, the trial Court is requested to make sincere endeavour for expeditious disposal of the application for interim injunction un-influenced by the impugned order. 6. The present revision petition stands allowed in the above-said terms. 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off. August 19, 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document