Civil Revision No. 4361 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4361 of 2009 Date of Decision: 04.08.2009 Mahesh Kumar son of Om Parkash Gill son of Beeru, r/o Partap Gali, Kaithal, District Kaithal. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus Sohan Lal son of Basheshar, r/o Mate Gate, Kaithal, District Kaithal. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner, for setting aside the order dated 26.02.09, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal, and the judgement dated 23.05.09, rendered by District Judge, Kaithal, vide which the appeal was dismissed. 2. The case of the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, was that, his grand-father Beeru, had been in possession of the land in dispute, measuring 2 kanals 1 marla, comprising khewat No. 241 Min, khatoni Civil Revision No. 4361 of 2009 2 No. 388, khasra No.150, situated within the revenue estate of Patti Dogar, Kaithal. It was stated that after the death of Beeru Ram, the father of the plaintiff, and after his death the plaintiff, had been in possession of the land, in dispute. It was further stated that the plaintiff belonged to barber caste and has got 'Borkka' of his ancestors constructed, on this land, which is a grave yard of barber community. It was further stated that the defendant, has no right or interest, in the property, in dispute. It was further stated that the defendant threatened to raise construction thereon. The defendant, was many a time asked, not to do so, but to no avail. On his final refusal, to desist from his illegal designs, left with no other alternative, a suit for permanent injunction, was filed. 3. Alongwith the plaint, an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, seeking ad-interim injunction, was filed. 4. The defendant/respondent, put in appearance, and filed written statement, as also reply to the application. The locus-standi of the plaintiff, was challenged. It was denied that the grand-father of the plaintiff, was in possession of the property, in dispute, and after his death, the father of the plaintiff, and after his death, the plaintiff came into possession thereof. It was denied that any 'Borkka' was existing, on the land, in dispute. It was further stated that the land was 'Shamshan Bhumi' (cremation ground) meant for Hindu Nais, but the same was never used, for this purpose, as there were other cremation grounds, in Kaithal City. It was further stated that the land, in dispute, was lying Civil Revision No. 4361 of 2009 3 vacant. Khasra girdwari of the same was got illegally changed by Naresh Kumar and Anil Kumar, in their favour. They were requested by Hindu Nais of Kaithal, to get the entries corrected, in favour of the Nai community, as a whole. They agreed to this request. Thereafter Hindu Nais, had been in possession of this property. They have sunk a submersible pump, in it, and constructed the boundary wall around it. The foundation of temple and two rooms have already been filled upto DPC level and three walls of one room have been raised upto the height of 8-9 feet. The construction of another room of the temple, was also being raised. It was further stated that the plaintiff, was, thus, not entitled to the injunction prayed for. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the record of the case, the trial Court, dismissed the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed by the Court of District Judge, Kaithal. 7. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant Revision-Petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and have gone through and perused the documents, on record, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the Courts below, were wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the plaintiff failed to connect the land, in dispute, with the land bearing khasra Nos. 516 and 517, which was at one time in possession of their Civil Revision No. 4361 of 2009 4 grand-father. 10. No doubt, the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, claimed that his grand-father, was in possession of khasra Nos. 516 and 517. However, that property, was not connected with the property, in dispute, which comprises khasra No. 150, measuring 2 kanals 1 marla, and is shown to be 'gair mumkin shamshan bhumi'. It is shown to be in possession of the members of Nai Community and there is no 'Borka' constructed therein. The Courts below, were right, in holding that the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, miserably failed to prima-facie establish,that he was in possession of any portion of the land, in dispute, and, as such, was not entitled to the injunction prayed for. The Courts below, thus, rightly declined the ad-interim injunction, in favour of the plaintiff/revision-petitioner. The orders of the Courts below,do not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The submission of the Counsel for the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same, is dismissed. 04.08.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE