-1- 150 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4417-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.05.2026 MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, TOHANA ...Petitioner Versus AM NARAYAN AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Shashank Bhandari, Advocate Ms. Manu Loona, Advocate Mr. Mrinal Dewan, Advocate for the petitioner. PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) The present civil revision petition has been preferred under Article 227 of Constitution of India by petitioner/defendant for setting aside of order dated 09.10.2025 (Annexure P-5A), passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tohana whereby application moved by respondents/plaintiffs to de-seal shops was allowed as well as order dated 31.01.2026 (Annexure P-7), passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fatehabad whereby appeal against order dated 09.10.2025 (Annexure P-5A) was dismissed. 2. The Court below have duly concluded that despite order dated 19.03.2025, petitioner/defendant had sealed the suit property on 02.09.2025. On consideration, I do not find any error in the conclusion drawn by both the Courts below. Admittedly, in the suit preferred by respondents/plaintiffs, status quo order was passed by the learned Court of first instance vide order dated 19.03.2025, whereby parties were directed to maintain status quo. Thereafter, on 02.09.2025 the shops were sealed by petitioner/defendant CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.05.29 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4417-2026 -2- without there being any vacation or modification in order dated 19.03.2025. Once order of status quo has been passed, petitioner/defendant has no right to seal the shops in violation of status quo order. Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant has argued that sealing was done as respondents/plaintiffs in violation of orders of status quo had started business/working in said shops which were vacant. 3. The only course available to petitioner/defendant was to approach the Court which has passed the status quo, for any action against respondents/plaintiffs having violated status quo order dated 19.03.2025. Petitioner/defendant in view of status quo order had no right to seal the shops unilaterally without seeking permission of the Court. Prima facie the sealing of shops is against status quo order and cannot be sustained and has rightly been ordered to be de-sealed. Accordingly, the Courts below have rightly directed petitioner/defendant to de-seal the shops. The above noted observation made be not construed as finding on merits but shall be restricted for decision of the present case. Petitioner/defendant shall be free to take appropriate redressal for their grievance in accordance with law by raising same before the Court. 4. Revision petition is without any merit, hence is dismissed. 5. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) 27.05.2026 JUDGE chiranjeev Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.05.29 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document