1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT v. CR-2565-2025
Case Details
Page 1 of 4 4 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 123 pta Seema Gupta M/s Bindlish I ish Industries & Others Vs. CR-2565-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 30.04.2025 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- dvocate with Ms. Rupali S. Verma, Advoc cate Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** Present petition under Art of Article 227 of the Constitution of India has bee
Legal Reasoning
been filed by the defendant No. he No.4 seeking a direction to the learned Civil ivil Judge (Junior Division), Dera ing era Bassi to decide the pending applications, a ns, awaiting adjudication for the las me e last more than 4 years the same being: - a) Application tion under Order XXXIX Rule 1 by e 1 and 2 CPC, 1908 filed by responden dent No.1-plaintiff (Annexure P3 im P3) wherein ex parte interim injunction ion was granted vide order dated 16 16.9.2020(Annexure P2). b) Application tion filed by pro-forma responden ed ndents No.2 and 3 (PSIEC) dated 22.01.2021 021 (Annexure P4) under Order for rder VII Rule 11 CPC, 1908 for rejection o n of the plaint which is also pen ast pending adjudication for the last about 4 yea 4 years. SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) c) Application tion dated 20.09.2021 (Annexure P Page 2 of 4 4 (cid:1) - ure P5) filed by respondent No.1- plaintiff for f for amendment of the plaint. 2. Ld. Counsel for the petition er itioner submits that the petitioner had participat ipated in an open auction conducte nd ucted by the defendants No.1 and 2/pro-forma a respondents No.3 and 4 he all herein, namely Punjab Small Industries and and Export Corporation Limited, u a d, upon which she was allotted a 1000 square y are yard plot vide allotment letter re tter dated 09.10.2019 (Annexure P6). The petiti etitioner has already paid 40% of th is f the sale consideration and she is awaiting poss ossession of the plot for the last er, last more than 5 years. However, process of han handing over of the possession to t led to the petitioner has been stalled on account nt of the frivolous Civil Suit he it for declaration filed by the plaintiff/respo espondent No.1 herein. It is submi ivil bmitted that along with the Civil Suit dated 10. 10.09.2020 (Annexure P1), the pla ion e plaintiff had filed an application under Order der 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC (Ann ed (Annexure 3). Vide order dated 16.09.2020 (A 0 (Annexure P2), ad interim injunct nst junction has been granted against the petitioner oner without any decision being ta on; g taken on the main application; due to which t ich the petitioner is suffering immen mensely. 3. It is further submitted tha nts that the pro-forma respondents No.2 and 3 ha 3 had also filed an application und ed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC dated 22.01.2021 (A 1 (Annexure P4) for rejection of th elf f the plaint. The plaintiff himself has also file filed an application dated 20. for 20.09.2021 (Annexure P5) for amendment o nt of the plaint. It is submitted t are ed that the said applications are SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) pending for o or over four years. It is according Page 3 of 4 4 (cid:1) be dingly prayed that a direction be issued to the l the learned trial Court to expeditiou ns itiously dispose of the applications i.e. Annexure P ure P3, Annexure P4 and Annexure P ure P5 in the interest of justice. 4. 5. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned cou nd ounsel for the petitioner and perused the ca e case file in great detail. 6. Perusal of the record of th tiff f the case shows that the plaintiff had filed the p the present Civil Suit in which ad in as d interim ex parte injunction was granted in his his favour vide order dated 16.0 he 16.09.2020 (Annexure P2) on the ground that t at the plot of the petitioner has gal has been carved out in an illegal manner in vio violation of the Master Plan and a . nd applicable Zoning Regulations. Accordingly, ly, while granting ad interim ed injunction vide order dated in 16.09.2020 (A (Annexure P2), learned trial Court ourt has recorded that:- “A prima facie case is made ou ua e out in favour of plaintiff qua defendant No.4 in view of th P3 f the zonal plan Annexeure-P3 showing in the public open space. ion ace. Taking over of the possession by defendant No.4 in the pub an public open space shall be an irreparable loss and injury and sh ing d shall be violative of the building by-laws & Zonal Plan. As such the lso h the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff and he and against defendant No.4. The very purpose of filing of the suit sh s if it shall be rendered infructuous if ad-interim relief is not granted. is ted. Thus, the defendant No.4 is ordered to maintain status quo all quo qua the suit property in all respects till 05.10.2020. However at ever, it is hereby made clear that this ad-interim ex-parte injunct the junction order is subject to the SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) compliance of provisions und Page 4 of 4 4 (cid:1) PC under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC immediately by plaintiff. Plaintiff ice intiff shall also ensure the service of defendant for the date fixed by ing d by taking dasti summons, failing which exparte ad-interim or
Decision
order shall ted stands vacated automatically.” 7. It has also come on rec record that vide order dated 26.10.2020, th 0, the petitioner was proceeded aga against ex parte. As such, order of ad interim rim injunction qua the petitioner st r stood extended till decision of the stay applic pplication. However, subsequently, v tly, vide order dated 05.03.2021, the ex parte p rte proceedings against the petition itioner were set aside subject to payment of co of cost of Rs.1,000/-. Perusal of the the zimni orders reproduced by the petitioner ner in the present petition reveal t eal that thereafter, the matter is being adjourn urned primarily for filing of reply a ly and arguments on application filed by the pla e plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC CPC. 8. Keeping in view the entire ntirety of the facts on file, it is clear that the the learned trial court is well app apprised of the matter; and no ground is ma made out to grant the prayer of r of the petitioner. The present petition accord ccordingly stands dismissed. 9. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of. 30.04.2025 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether speaki Whether report eaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No portable: SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)