Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against order dated 25.9.2008 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), exercising the powers of Collector under the Punjab Public Premises Act, 1973, Amloh under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, whereby, the proceedings before it have been adjourned sine die to await the decision of the Civil Suit alleged to have been filed by both petitioner as well as respondents No. 2 and 3.
2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute is with regard to a street, which is allegedly in unauthorized occupation of respondents No.2 and 3, is a passage meant for public at large. Respondents No.2 and 3 filed a Civil Suit No. 283 on 21.7.2003 for permanent injunction restraining the Municipal Council not to dispossess them from the property in dispute in which following order was passed on 21.7.2003:
Written Statement and reply not ready. Adjournment is requested. Be filed on or before 6.8.2003. In the meantime, status quo regarding possession be maintained. However, the defendant shall be at liberty to take possession in due course of law, it be registered.
3. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 16416 of 2003 against the State of Punjab including both the private respondents seeking the following relief:
(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to comply with the provisions of Section 50-A and 50- B read with Section 52 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.
(b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure the removal of unauthorized occupation from the Government land - passage and further for directing the respondents not to accept tehbazari from the private respondent for any further period as it leads to blocking of the passage to the house of the petitioner.
4. Notice was issued and a short reply thereto, was filed by the Executive Officer of Municipal Council, Mandi Gobindgarh as well as the private respondents. On 20.5.2005, Hon'ble Division Bench passed the following order:
Though a short reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 4, 5 and 7 but learned Counsel for the petitioner does not press the writ petition.
Dismissed accordingly.
5. After the disposal of the writ petition, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC' ) was filed by the petitioner for his impleadment as partydefendant in Civil Suit No. 283 on 21.7.2003 filed by respondents No.2 and 4. The said application was dismissed on 19.4.2006, against which Civil Revision No. 2559 of 2006 filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.7.2006, in which following order was passed:
This is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 19.4.2006 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Amloh whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading Major Kashmiri Lal as defendant to the suit has been dismissed.
After arguing for some time, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that he be allowed to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file a fresh suit in accordance with law.
Allowed to do so. Dismissed as withdrawn.
6. The petitioner then issued notice under Section 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 on 5.9.2006 and filed a suit for mandatory injunction with similar prayer as was made in the aforementioned Civil Writ Petition. During the pendency of the said suit, petitioner preferred revision petition, namely, CR No. 5533 of 2007 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking speedy disposal of the suit. However, the said revision petition was dismissed on 18.2.2008 in which the following order was passed:
Report was called from Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh as to why the statements of witnesses present were not recorded. The report received shows that no PW came present and the case was adjourned for entire evidence of the plaintiff at his own responsibility including the cross-examination of the witnesses whose affidavits were tendered on 19.9.2007. It is seen that no witness was present for examination when the case was adjourned. In this view of the matter, no directions for expediting the trial are required to be made.
Dismissed.
7. Then the petitioner filed an application under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1973 seeking removal of encroachment by respondents No. 1 and 2 (private respondents No. 2 and 3 herein) from the public passage and seeking direction against the official respondents not to receive any tehbazari from them. The said application was contested by the present private respondents on various grounds but ultimately, learned Collector Amloh vide his order dated 25.9.2008 under the Punjab Premises Act, 1973 concluded that in the wake of civil suits filed by both the sides, this case is required to be adjourned sine die and as such same was done.
8. Aggrieved against the said order, present revision petition has been filed, in which, it is, inter alia, argued by the counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 1 has erred, while exercising its jurisdiction, in adjourning the case sine die on the ground that there is a status quo order passed by the Civil Court on 21.7.2003. In the said order, it has been clarified that however, the defendant shall be at liberty to take possession in due course of law. It is, thus, submitted that the present application under the Punjab Public Premises Act, 1973 has been filed, which is in accordance with law for the purpose of removal of encroachment by the private respondents from the alleged public passage. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the respondent No. 1 be directed to proceed with the application to a logical conclusion.
9. On the other hand, learned Counsel for private respondents has vehemently argued that the present application filed under the Punjab Public Premises Act, 1973 is not maintainable after the dismissal of the writ petition in which the same prayer was made because the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. It is further submitted that the liberty was given to the defendant in the Civil Suit No. 283 of 21.7.2003 in which petitioner sought himself to be impleaded as party, which was opposed by respondent No. 2 and Municipal Council on the ground that the petitioner cannot be given advantage as he was not the defendant as his application for impleadment was dismissed by order of the Court, which was further dismissed in the revision petition vide order dated 21.7.2003. Therefore, the word 'defendant' does not denote the present petitioner as he was not a party to that suit. Therefore, he cannot take advantage of the order, which was passed on 18.2.2008, to contend that his application under the Punjab Public Premises Act, 1973 for taking possession, is in accordance with law. I find force in the arguments raised by learned Counsel for the respondent because status quo order is still operative and as such I do not find any merit in the present revision petition. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed, though, without any order as to costs.