Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardeep Singh vs Bathinda Development Authority And ... on 25 November, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154947
CR-6833-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
CR-6833-2024
Date of decision : 25.11.2024
Hardeep Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
Bathinda Development Authority & another ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Ram Kumar Chauhan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of directions to the Additional District
Judge, Bathinda to decide the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC
in Civil Appeal no.172 of 2024 titled as "Hardeep Singh through LRs vs.
Bathinda Development Authority" pending for 11.12.2024 expeditiously
within a time frame.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that against
the judgment dated 09.09.2024 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner has filed an
appeal and in the said appeal vide order dated 23.09.2024, notice was issued
by the Ist Appellate Court after observing that there are fairly arguable
points in the appeal. It is submitted that the main appeal is listed for
15.01.2025 but on account of the fact that the respondent authorities were
seeking possession vide notice dated 18.11.2024, the petitioner has filed an
application for pre-poning of the said appeal, in which notice was issued on
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154947
28.10.2024 for 04.11.2024. On 04.11.2024, the matter had been adjourned
to 07.11.2024 and on 07.11.2024, the application for preponment had been
adjourned to 19.11.2024. It is submitted that vide order dated 19.11.2024, it
was recorded that the reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2
CPC on behalf of the respondent has been filed and the case is now listed
for 11.12.2024 for arguments on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and
2 CPC as well as main appeal. The trial Court record was also summoned
for the said date. It is stated that at this stage, the petitioner would be
satisfied in case the Ist Appellate Court is requested to decide the
application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, as expeditiously as possible,
in case the main appeal itself cannot be decided.
3. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the
present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Ist Appellate Court to
decide the application for stay under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by
the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3
weeks from 11.12.22024, in case the main appeal cannot be decided for any
reason whatsoever.
4. It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of
the application and the Ist Appellate Court would consider the said
application for stay filed in Civil Appeal no.172 of 2024 as independently,
in accordance with law, after hearing all the parties concerned.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
November 25, 2024.
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
2 of 2
