IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7991-2025 DECIDED ON: 07.11.2025 MANOHAR LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS.

.....PETITIONERS VERSUS ATMA SINGH AND ANR.

.....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate and Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners.

MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of directions to the learned First Appellate Court to decide the stay application dated 16.05.2019, filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in a time- bound manner. It is further prayed that the respondents, during the pendency of the said application, be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the suit property.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the plaintiff–Manohar Lal, now represented by the petitioners, had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants–respondents from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property and from raising any illegal construction thereon. The said suit was decreed by the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 05.09.2012.

3. Aggrieved by the said decree, the defendants–respondents preferred an appeal, which was remanded to the learned trial Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Upon remand, the learned trial court, after re-adjudicating the matter, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 04.05.2019.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff–petitioners filed an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court along with an application for stay under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC on 16.05.2019. It is the grievance of the petitioners that despite lapse of more than five years, the said stay application has not been decided and continues to remain pending along with the main appeal, which is now listed for 24.02.2026.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that due to the prolonged pendency of the stay application, the respondents have started taking undue advantage by creating third-party rights and interfering in the possession of the petitioners. It is further alleged that the respondents have also been threatening and attacking the petitioners’ mother, namely Smt. Minakshi, wife of Shri Lokesh Kumar, thereby causing grave hardship and prejudice to the petitioners.

6. The matter being limited in scope and involving a short question of law, no notice was considered necessary to be issued to the respondents.

7. I find merit in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners. The perusal of the record and orders placed on file reveals that the stay application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC has been pending before the learned First Appellate Court since 16.05.2019, yet no decision has been rendered till date. The appeal has been adjourned from time to time merely on the ground that arguments are not being addressed, resulting in undue delay and prejudice to the petitioners.

8. Once an application for stay under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC is filed along with the appeal, it is incumbent upon the Appellate Court to decide the same expeditiously, particularly where allegations of interference and breach of peace are raised. The inaction of the Appellate Court for such an inordinate period defeats the very purpose of the remedy sought and amounts to failure of justice.

9. Consequently, this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, directs the learned First Appellate Court to decide the stay application dated 16.05.2019, filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC in Civil Appeal No. 486 of 2019, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, submits that in view of the above direction, the petitioners do not wish