C.R. No.7406 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7406 of 2009 Date of Decision: 15.12.2009 Tehal Singh alias Tehal Dass and another .……petitionerss Versus Ranjodh Singh ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. G. S. Punia, Advocate for the petitionerss. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. S. S. Rangi, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent-caveator. Copy of the paper book already supplied to him. Heard. File perused. This is revision petition by petitioners filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 20.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana thereby setting aside order dated 24.07.2008 (Annexure P- 2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana. The petitioners filed suit for permanent injunction and possession against the respondent-defendant alleging that the petitioners rented out a small portion measuring about 1000 square yards out of suit land to defendant for one year, but he did not vacate the said portion on expiry of lease deed. The petitioners sought relief of possession C.R. No.7406 of 2009 -2- regarding the said portion of suit property. The petitioners also claimed that they are in possession of the remaining portion of suit land measuring 66 kanals 06 marlas as occupancy tenants for the last more than 45 years, but the defendant wanted to interfere in their possession thereon and wanted to raise construction therein. The petitioners accordingly sought permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering in their possession over the suit land. Application for temporary injunction to the same effect till final decision of the suit was also moved under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, C.P.C). Learned Trial Court vide order dated 24.07.2008 allowed the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction, but the appellate Court vide impugned judgment (Annexure P-1), passed in appeal preferred by respondent herein, set aside the order of the trial Court and dismissed the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction. The stand of respondent is that he had taken two shops along with some open space of land for one year for running wine shop being licence holder. His licence expired on 31.03.2008 and thereupon he surrendered possession thereof on expiry of licence/lease deed. It was also alleged by the defendant that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property. It was also pleaded that the defendant is neither in possession of any part of the suit property nor he was trying to interfere in possession of occupants of the suit property. Learned counsel for respondent after perusing the lease agreement states that respondent had taken two shops and open space for rent from petitioners No.2. C.R. No.7406 of 2009 -3- Learned counsel for respondent states that the respondent undertakes not to interfere in possession of the suit property and not to raise any construction therein because the defendant-respondent has no concern with the suit property and there is no cause of action against him. In view of the aforesaid undertaking given by learned counsel for respondent on behalf of respondent, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the revision petition may be disposed of accordingly. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 15.12.2009 A. Kaundal