[292] Dera Santg District Ho Manjit Sing Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] the respond is taken on [2] 14.01.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA CR-3286- Date of De Santgarh, Harkhowal, Tehsil & ict Hoshiarpur and others versu jit Singh and another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. Ajay Kalra, Advocate, Mr Advocate and Ms. Isha Janjua for the petitioners. **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate, p espondents and has filed his vakalatna en on record. The present revision petition .2026, which reads as under:- “ The case was fixed for Order 39 Rule 1&2 CPC as per Since then arguments are no application. At about 3:45 pm, G on behalf of plaintiff appeared a asked if the arguments would be plaintiff or anyone on behalf o anything. Perusal of file reveals matter is being adjourned for a for one reason or another, addressed. It seems that plainti application under Order 39 Rul for defendants are present to add the application under Order 39 being not pressed. T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH -2026 (O&M) of Decision : 30.04.2026 …Petitioners ersus ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN Mr. Pritpal Singh Sangha, Janjua, Advocate cate, puts in appearance on behalf of latnama in Court today. The same tition is directed against Order dated for arguments on application under s per the earlier order dated 1.8.2025. not being addressed on the stay m, Gurmit Singh stated to be attorney red and did not say anything. He was ld be addressed by the ld. Counsel for lf of plaintiff, but he did not clarify eals that sine 1.8.2025 repeatedly, the or arguments on stay application but er, the arguments have not been aintiff is not interested to pursue this Rule 1&2 CPC, however Ld.Counsel o address the arguments. Accordingly, r 39 Rule 1&2 CPC is disposed off alf of same dated der 025. stay ney was l for rify , the but een this nsel gly, off RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.01 16:27 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-3286-2026 (O&M) -2- Since issues in this case have already been framed vide order dated 10.7.2025, the matter is adjourned for evidence of plaintiff. Dasti summons be taken at own responsibility, and Ahlmad is directed to issue notice to witnesses as per list of witnesses already attached by the plaintiff on record. The matter is adjourned to 27.1.2026 for plaintiff evidence.” [3] The Trial Court disposed off the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC as not pressed keeping in view the conduct of the plaintiff. In the considered opinion of this Court, even though the Court may be justified in making observation with respect to the conduct of the plaintiffs but it ought to have adjudicated upon the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC. [4] Counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs undertakes that the plaintiffs shall argue the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC. [5] On his undertaking, the impugned order dated 14.01.2026 is set aside, subject to the condition that the plaintiffs shall argue the application on the date fixed by the Trial Court after the present order is brought to its notice. [6] With the aforesaid observations, the present revision petition is dismissed. [7] Plaintiffs are warned to be careful and should not adopt any delaying tactics. Rather they should aide the expeditious disposal of lis. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 30.04.2026 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.01 16:27 I agree to specified portions of this document