IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 156 CR-5088-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.07.2026 M/s Eagle Eye Club Retreats LLP and others ...Petitioners Versus M/s Eagle Eye Security & Housekeeping Services and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Arav Gupta, Advocate and Ms. Ashmeet Kaur Shah, Advocate for the petitioners. ***** VIKAS SURI, J. (Oral) 1. The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the defendant-petitioners for setting aside order dated 22.06.2026 (Annexure P-14) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, setting aside the order dated 13.05.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat, whereby ad interim injunction prayed for by the plaintiff was declined; and the appellate Court has remanded the matter to the trial Court, while ordering status quo, based on the agreement dated 15.03.2024. 2. At the preliminary hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners had restricted the prayer before this Court, and the following order was passed on 07.07.2026: “At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petition arises from SUMIT KUMAR 2026.07.24 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-5088-2026 -2- ad interim injunction order passed by the First Appellate Court whereas the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (for short, ‘CPC’), is still pending. It is further submitted that the petitioner-defendants are yet to file their written statement as well as reply to the aforesaid injunction application. On instructions from Rakesh Kalra (petitioner No.2) and partner of petitioner No.1, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would be satisfied, at this stage, in case a direction is issued to the Trial Court to dispose of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, expeditiously, and in a time bound manner. He further undertakes that the written statement and reply to the injunction application will be filed on the date already fixed before the Trial Court, i.e. 14.07.2026. Notice of motion to the limited extent to respondent No.1 only, at this stage, returnable for 22.07.2026. Process dasti only. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to additionally serve respondent No.1 through the counsel representing it before the Trial Court. To be shown in the urgent cause list.” 3. Ms. Anjali Singh, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 and has filed her power of attorney in Court, which is taken on record. She submits that keeping in view the limited prayer made by the petitioners, without adjudicating or commenting upon the merits of the present case, the trial Court may be directed to decide the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, expeditiously, after SUMIT KUMAR 2026.07.24 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR-5088-2026 -3- affording adequate opportunity to both the parties to make their submissions. 4. In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, without going into the merits of the controversy or making any observation in that regard, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned trial Court to dispose of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to both the sides, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the next date of hearing already fixed before it, which is stated to be 05.08.2026. 5. Needless to observe that no observations have been made by this Court on the merits of the controversy and the injunction application be decided without being influenced by any observation made in the orders dated 22.06.2026 or 13.05.2026. 6. The revision petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. (VIKAS SURI) July 22, 2026 JUDGE sumit.k Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether Reportable : Yes / No SUMIT KUMAR 2026.07.24 15:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment