Civil Revision No. 4333 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 4333 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.1.2009 Hardip Singh and others ..... Petitioners vs Amrik Singh and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. P. S. Goraya, Advocate, for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge (adhoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, dated 2.6.2008, whereby the order passed by the learned trial court in an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, was upheld to the extent of interim stay protecting the right of the petitioners on the land measuring 3 kanals whereas for the small portion of 4 marlas land, the interim stay was vacated. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Bawa Singh, Ajit Singh and Partap Singh etc. were co-owner of land measuring 4 kanals 4 marlas out of which the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners namely Chanan Singh were mortgagee with possession of land measuring 3 kanals 4 marlas. It is so recorded in the jamabandis and also the khasra girdawaris. The owners of the land, namely, Bawa Singh, Ajit Singh and Partap Singh etc. sold the land to the respondents vide two sale deeds executed for 3 kanals and 1 kanals 4 marlas of land on the basis of which the mutation of ownership was also entered in their favour. However, there is no redemption of mortgage of the land which is in favour of the petitioners as mortgagees. Even in the khasra girdawari for the year 2003-2004, it is recorded that 3 kalas 4 marlas of land is in cultivating possession of the mortgagees. Accordingly, the possession of the petitioners even on 4 marlas of land also deserves to be protected. Civil Revision No. 4333 of 2008 (2) Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was partition proceedings where the land measuring 4 kanals and 4 marlas was partitioned amongst the co-sharers in the year 1996. It was sold to the respondents and in those proceedings the possession has been delivered to the parties. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts in view, I find merits in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that his possession on the land measuring 4 marlas also needs to be protected during the pendency of the suit as there is nothing on record showing redemption of the mortgage. The revenue records clearly establish possession of the petitioners. Accordingly, finding prima-facie, the impugned order passed by the court below to the extent possession on 4 marlas of land was not protected, is set aside and the possession of the petitioners on the entire chunk of land 3 kanals 4 marlas of land is protected till the decision of the suit. The petition is disposed of. 19.1.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge