C.R. No. 760 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 760 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: February 11, 2009 Naranjan Singh .. Petitioner v. Gram Panchayat, Ismailabad .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S.S. Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The plaintiff is before this court aggrieved against the orders passed by the learned courts below, whereby his application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for interim injunction during the pendency of the suit was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking restrain against the respondent from dispossessing him from the plot in question. It was claimed that the petitioner is the owner in possession thereof and the Gram Panchayat has no concern whatsoever with the plot in dispute. Along with the suit, an application for interim injunction was filed which was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once it is found that the petitioner is in possession of the property in dispute, even if he is a trespasser, he can be dispossessed only in due course of law. However, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Both the courts below have considered the contentions raised by the petitioner-plaintiff in great detail. It has been noticed that in the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, description of the property has not been given properly. In the plaint, the petitioner had not disclosed any khasra number of the suit property, whereas the respondent- defendant stated that the suit property is part of khasra No. 1691/1. To this stand of the respondent-defendant in the written statement, no replication was filed. As per C.R. No. 760 of 2009 [2] jamabandi for the year 2003-04, Panchayat is shown to be owner of Khasra No. 1691/1 and in the column of possession, Rafa-a-am is mentioned. The total area of 21 kanals 12 marlas is shown as Gair Mumkin Baithak Maveshian. Considering these facts on record and also observing that the petitioner-plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands as he had not given true and correct particulars in the suit filed, the prayer made by him qua interim injunction was rejected. With this material on record, where the petitioner does not have any right, title or interest in the property in his possession and is seeking injunction against the true owner, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 11.2.2009 mk