IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.877 of 2008 Date of decision: February 13, 2008. Pal Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Bhag Singh & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: Shri Preetwinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 5th December, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala whereby an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC moved by respondent no.1 – plaintiff has been allowed and the petitioner, along with his co-defendants, has been restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession, as well as the order dated 24th September, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Patiala upholding the aforesaid order of the learned trial court. As is apparent from the impugned orders, both the courts have granted injunction in favour of the respondent – plaintiff after observing that the revenue record consistently shows him in possession of the subject land as tenant gair marusi. The appellate court has further observed that these entries in the jamabandi are not stray but from the year 1995-96 onwards and even prior thereto. Since the petitioner and his co-defendants have failed to rebut the presumption of truth attached to the revenue record, learned courts below have rightly held that in the event of forcible dispossession, the respondent – plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss. The other ingredients of an ad-interim injunction are also in his favour. No case to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is, thus, made out. Dismissed. February13, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge