Civil Revision No. 6048 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6048 of 2009 Date of decision : July 21, 2010 Bishambar Dayal ....Petitioner versus Jeeta Singh ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. JS Thind, Advocate, for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendant Bishambar Dayal has filed instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 8.6.2005, Annexure P/1, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dabwali and appellate judgment dated 11.9.2009, Annexure P/3, passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Sirsa thereby granting temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff-respondent Jeeta Singh and thereby restraining petitioner from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and from ousting him therefrom till disposal of the suit. Respondent-plaintiff filed suit alleging that as co-sharer in joint land, he is in exclusive possession of the suit land measuring 4 kanals 4 marlas comprised of killa no. 47//16/1, but the defendant, on the basis of Civil Revision No. 6048 of 2009 -2- alleged order dated 9.5.1998 and rapat roznamacha Patwari dated 2.7.1998 which are void ab-initio, threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land illegally and forcibly without any right to do so. Defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit land. The defendant-petitioner, inter alia, pleaded that he is in open, hostile, continuous and adverse possession of the suit land for more than 15 years and has become owner thereof by adverse possession and therefore, he cannot be dispossessed from the suit land. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land. It was also alleged that the plaintiff has already sold more than his share in the joint land. Learned trial court vide order Annexure P/1 granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Appeal preferred by the defendant-petitioner against said order of the trial court has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) vide impugned judgment Annexure P/3. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Naib Tehsildar after visiting the spot found the petitioner to be in possession of the suit land and passed order dated 9.5.1998 for correction of khasra girdawari in favour of the petitioner and the same was entered in roznamacha Patwari vide report no. 364 dated 2.7.1998 and accordingly, the defendant petitioner is in possession of the suit land and orders of the courts below are, therefore, illegal and unsustainable. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent Civil Revision No. 6048 of 2009 -3- contended that in view of jamabandi for 1988-89 and subsequent khasra girdawaris, plaintiff-respondent is in possession of the suit land as co-sharer and no order dated 9.5.1998 was ever passed by Naib Tehsildar for correction of khasra girdawari and report dated 2.7.1998 entered by Patwari is illegal. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is the stand of the plaintiff-respondent since beginning that no order dated 9.5.1998 was passed by Naib Tehsildar. The plaintiff-respondent moved application for obtaining certified copy of the alleged order dated 9.5.1998, but the same was returned with report that no such file exists. In spite thereof, the defendant-petitioner has not placed on record any copy of the said order although the suit was filed more than five years ago. On the other hand, the plaintiff-respondent placed on record certified copy of order dated 15.1.1998 whereby application for correction of khasra girdawari moved by the defendant-petitioner was dismissed in default. It is, thus, apparent that no order dated 9.5.1998 ordering correction of khasra girdawari in favour of defendant-petitioner exists. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that there is report no. 364 dated 2.7.1998 entered in roznamacha of Patwari on the basis of the said order. However, as noticed herein above, order dated 9.5.1998 is not shown to be in existence and consequently report dated 2.7.1998 cannot be accepted. If order dated 9.5.1998 had been in existence, nothing prevented the defendant-petitioner from producing copy thereof. However, the defendant-petitioner has not been able to produce copy of any such order dated 9.5.1998 and therefore, at this stage, it can be safely presumed that no such order is in existence and report dated 2.7.1998 entered in roznamacha Patwari is erroneous and without any basis. The Civil Revision No. 6048 of 2009 -4- said report was also not reflected in subsequent khasra girdawaris. The revenue records depict possession of the plaintiff- respondent over the suit land. There is nothing on record to depict that the defendant-petitioner ever came in possession of the suit land. On the other hand, in application moved by the defendant-petitioner in trial court for appointment of Local Commissioner, it was alleged that he was in permissive possession of the suit land as Gair Marusi, but in reply to injunction application, the defendant took the stand that he is in adverse possession of the suit land. However, there is nothing on record to show as to how and when the defendant-petitioner came in possession of the suit land. There is no material on record to depict that defendant-petitioner is prima facie in possession of the suit land. On the other hand, there is enough material on record to depict that plaintiff-respondent is prima facie in possession of the suit land. Consequently, temporary injunction has been rightly granted in favour of the plaintiff-respondent by the courts below. There is no infirmity much less illegality in the orders of the courts below so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In fact, on the basis of the material on record, no different view could be taken than the view taken by the courts below. The instant revision petition is completely frivolous and devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, nothing observed in this order shall have any bearing on the merits of the suit. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 21, 2010 Judge 'dalbir' Civil Revision No. 6048 of 2009 -5-