IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (108) CM-6726-LPA-2025;

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:13)in/and LPA-2683-2025 Date of Decision : September 05, 2025 Harwinder Singh .. Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Lakhwinder Singh Mann, Advocate, for the appellant.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

CM-6726-LPA-2025 Present application has been filed for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the appeal.

Keeping in view the facts mentioned in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. Delay of 10 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

CM-6727-LPA-2025 As prayed for, the application is allowed.

Annexures A-1 to A-4 are taken on record.

LPA-2683-2025

1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CRWP No.7474 of 2025, by which, the trial Court has been directed to decide the application under Order 39 Rule 2 A of the CPC expeditiously within a period of two weeks from the next date of hearing fixed before the trial Court.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that fixing of the time frame by the Court is incorrect and beyond the jurisdiction and therefore, the said order dated 23.07.2025 is liable to be set aside.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

4. Though, the jurisdiction to file the present Letters Patent Appeal keeping in view the High Court Rules and Regulations read with Letters Patent Act in the facts and circumstances of this case is a matter of argument but keeping the said question of law open, the appeal is being decided by this Court on merits.

5. It may be noticed that the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is as under:

“ The prayer in the petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 to 3 especially respondent No.3 in ordering respondent no.5 to safeguard the life, liberty and property of the petitioner and his family members which is in danger at the hands of private respondent nos. 6 to 9.

The present petition is disposed of with a direction to the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jalandhar to decide the application under order 39 Rule 2-A CPC as expeditiously as possible but in any case not later than 02 weeks from the next date of hearing fixed before it.”

6. A bare perusal of the above would show that the prayer made before this Court was with regard to the safeguard of the life and liberty as well as the property of the appellant and his family members, which is alleged to be in danger at the hands of the private respondents No. 6 to 9. Under these circumstances, the direction was given to the trial Court that appropriate decision be taken qua the grievance being raised in an application filed under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the CPC which related to the life and liberty as well as property of the respondents in the present appeal.

7. Keeping in view the fact that urgency was required, the direction was given by the Court to decide the application filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC expeditiously, which is within the jurisdiction of the Court.

8. The reliance is being placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.4758 of 2024 titled as Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi vs. The State of Maharashtra, decided on 25.11.2024 to contend that the time bound direction should not be given to conclude the trial as the trial Court becomes burdened with the such directions of the constitutional Court and therefore, the direction given by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside being contrary to the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sangram Sadashiv Sur