Civil Revision No. 4174 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4174 of 2011 Date of Decision: 12.7.2011 *** Jagpal Singh & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Shailender Sharma, Advocate *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioners-plaintiffs have filed the present civil revision against the orders dated 15.11.2008 and 13.4.2011 passed by the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court below, refusing to grant temporary injunction in their favour. Heard. The case of the plaintiffs is that there exist a public passage in khasra No.634/3(1-13), used by the inhabitants of the village, but the defendants, who have no right on the same, wants to encroach the same taking the undue benefit of wrong entry in the revenue record. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendants that the said khasra number is their exclusive ownership and the plaintiffs, in connivance with the revenue authorities, got the entries changed by showing the land as “gair mumkin sadak”. It is apparent from the perusal of the impugned orders that the plaintiffs based their claim on the strength of khasra girdawari for the year 2004-05 wherein the land was shown as gair mumkin sadak, but this fact abruptly came into picture only in that khasra girdawari alone, without there being any basis due to which the said entry was changed from “gair mumkim” to “gair mumkim sadak”, whereas according to the revenue record produced by the defendants, they were shown as co-sharers in the suit property. Furthermore, it emerges out that initially one of the plaintiffs Civil Revision No. 4174 of 2011 2 namely Jagdip Singh filed the civil suit in respect of the same khasra number, with the same pleadings and after having failed to get temporary injunction, he withdrew the suit. Although, the plaintiffs claimed that in an earlier round of litigation, the suit land was held to be a public passage, but it has come on record that the defendants were never party to that litigation and in the totality of these facts, both the Courts below, rightly declined the relief of temporary injunction to the plaintiffs as against the true owners. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The revision petition, being without merit, is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 12, 2011 Jiten