Raj Kumar & Anr. v. Lakhwinder Singh & Ors.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present:- Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.P.S. Doabia, Advocate for respondent No.6. **** M. JEYAPAUL, J.(Oral) It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.7 is proforma respondent. Fresh notice to respondent No.7 stands dispensed with. The plaintiffs' application seeking temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit was dismissed by the trail Court. The order of dismissal was upheld by the First Appellate Court. Hence, the plaintiffs have preferred the present revision petition. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/ plaintiffs referring to the observations made by the First Appellate Court at paragraph No.14 of its order would submit that the plaintiffs had already moved an application praying to amend the plaint to the effect that the suit property did not bear Khasra No.875. The said application is pending disposal, it is reported. In view of the above, learned counsel appearing for the revision C.R. No.3851 of 2012 -2- petitioners would submit that the main civil revision may be disposed of, giving liberty to the revision petitioners to move fresh application invoking Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction after disposal of the application for amendment moved by the revision petitioners before the trial Court. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 would submit that the application for amendment moved by the revision petitioners before the trial Court shall be decided on merits. If at all, the said application is allowed then the revision petitioners may be given liberty to file fresh application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. In view of the above, directing the trial Court to dispose of the application for amendment of the plaint moved by the revision petitioners as early as possible and to permit the revision petitioners to move an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC after disposal of the said application, the revision petition stands dismissed. November 08, 2012 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) JUDGE