IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (119)

Date of Decision:-20.01.2026 OVINDER SOOD AND ANOTHER … Petitioners Versus SHIVDARSHAN KAUR AND OTHERS ... Respondents -.-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Rohit Kataria, Advocate, and Mr. Mann K. Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioners.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The instant civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 19.12.2025, whereby the learned Trial Court has declined the restoration of the electricity supply of the shop in question.

2. Petitioners are the tenant under respondents up to 31.10.2027 and he is running a business of operating cold storage for storing vegetables and fruits. Respondents in order to evict the petitioners in illegal manner filed eviction petition, which is pending adjudication. Respondents illegally got the electricity supply connection disconnected despite petitioner paying electricity charges in time.

3. Being aggrieved, petitioners filed civil suit along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking directions to respondents to restore the electricity and for restraining respondents from interfering into the peaceful possession and business of the petitioners. Trial Court issued the notice to the respondents and granted interim injunction but petitioners could not comply with the provisions of Rule 3 of Order 39 of CPC, so, the ex parte interim injunction was vacated vide order dated 19.09.2025 and respondents disconnected the supply on 15.12.2025 prompting petitioners to move another application for injunction and the learned Civil Judge has not passed any interim injunction vide order dated

19.12.2025.

4. Aggrieved by the order so passed, the present revision petition has been filed.

5. I have heard counsel for the petitioners.

6. Since petitioners has failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 3 of Order 39 of CPC, so, the first interim injunction order passed in favour of the petitioners was vacated by the learned Trial Court. If now on the subsequent injunction application. Interim injunction without hearing the other party is passed in favour of petitioners, it would amount to nullifying the effect of Rule 3 of Order 39 of CPC, so the learned Civil Judge has rightly declined to grant ex parte interim injunction in favour of petitioners but since petitioners is seeking restoration of electricity supply connection, it is a necessity for his business and counsel for the petitioners submitted that it amounts to violation of his fundamental right to carry on trade and business, so it is incumbent upon the trial Court to dispose of injunction application on merits expeditiously. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that now it is pending for today, in such circumstances, the revision petition is disposed of with directions to learned Trial Court to dispose of injunction application after hearing both the parties on merits within a period of 15 days even by preponing the hearing if it is so required.

7. As a natural corollary, since the main case stands disposed of, all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, as no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping them pending.

(VIRINDER AGGARWAL)

20^th January, 2026 JUDGE S. Pathania