CIVIL REVISION NO.6760 OF 2005 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 28, 2008 Surender Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Sandeep Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Aggrieved against the order passed by Additional District Judge, Karnal, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, he has filed the present revision petition. The suit pertains to an agreement to sell dated 22.7.2002. The respondent-petitioner has filed this suit for declaring this agreement to be null and void. The petitioner took up a stand in the written statement that on account of payment of earnest money and part payment, the possession of the land in question was handed CIVIL REVISION NO.6760 OF 2005 :{ 2 }: over to the petitioner. It is in this background, that the respondent- plaintiff had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, for restraining the petitioner-defendant from dis-possessing him from the suit land. The Appellate Court while declining the prayer has observed that the petitioner has not given the description of the land in the agreement to sell. The petitioner could not be presumed to be in possession of the land when he failed to produce any revenue khasra girdawari or nehri khasra girdawari showing his possession over the suit land. It is accordingly observed that the respondent- plaintiff would be assumed to be in possession and recital in the agreement that the possession was handed over to the petitioner would not be a sufficient proof of possession of the petitioner over the suit land. Reference was made to Annexure P-3 to show possession of the petitioner and notice of motion was issued and status quo in regard to possession of the land was directed to be maintained. The counsel for the petitioner has now mainly relied upon a correction of a Khasra Girdawari carried out by Naib Tehsildar in his report, copy of which is annexed as Annexure P-3, to show that the petitioner is in possession of the suit land. As per Annexure P-3, possession of petitioner Surinder Singh is recorded over Khasra number 171/21/2 (4-16), 22(8-0), 186/1 (7-7), 2(6-10) total measuring 26 Kanals 13 marlas situated in village Shambli, Tehsil and District CIVIL REVISION NO.6760 OF 2005 :{ 3 }: Karnal. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, says that Annexure P-3 has no relevance so far as the suit property is concerned. He would refer to an agreement annexed as Annexure P-2 with the petition to say that this was in relation to Khata Nos.319, 318, 147, 315, 325, 322, 323 and 313 situated at Village Shambli, Tehsil and District Karnal. Thus, his contention is that agreement was in respect of different land than what is shown to be in possession of the petitioner as per Annexure P-3. He accordingly contends that Annexure P-3 has no relevance for construing the possession of the petitioner over the suit property. Since the petitioner has not been able to establish sufficiently his possession over the suit land, which is subject matter of agreement, the trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court were justified in observing that the petitioner has not shown himself to be in possession of the suit land except for the recital contained in the agreement. The petitioner has no viable proof of his possession over the suit land. There is no infirmity or irregularity noticed in the impugned order, which may call for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. February 28,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE