IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 5357 of 2008 Date of Decision: 21.11.2008 Tej Pal and others. ....... Petitioners through Shri R.S.Sihota, Senior Advocate with Shri Ashok K.Sharma, Advocate. Versus Sumer Singh and others. ....... Respondents through Shri Adarsh Jain, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. The petitioners have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside orders dated 11.9.2008 (Annexure P2) and 10.2.2006 (Annexure P1) passed by Additional District Judge, Gurgaon and Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal, respectively, by which their prayer for grant of ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. was declined. A civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been filed by the petitioners wherein it was pleaded that they are in actual physical cultivating possession as tenants/ gair morushis on the agricultural land detailed in the plaint and situated within the revenue estate of village C.R.No.5357 of 2008 -2- .... Mandkola, Tehsil Hathin, District Faridabad. It was further pleaded by the petitioners that previously Smt.Ganga alias Gungi wife of late Shri Vijay Singh, resident of Village Mandkola was a tenant on payment of 1/3rd Batai under respondent nos. 1 and 2 and she willed away her tenancy rights to them vide Will dated 6.10.1992 and after her death in 1996, they are in continuous and peaceful possession of the suit land as tenants. The petitioners averred that since respondent no.3, their father, had strained relations with them, he got his name inserted as tenant qua the suit land in collusion with the village patwari. It was further averred that a suit was filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 bearing No.335 of 1997 titled “Sumer Singh and another Versus Chandi regarding the land in dispute, wherein the petitioners were not impleaded as parties. In this suit, the petitioners moved an application for being impleaded as parties, but the same was declined vide order dated 20.2.2001 and the revision against that order was also dismissed on 26.9.2001. That suit was decreed on 2.6.2003 and in pursuance to that decree, warrants of possession were issued and a false report of delivery of possession was obtained on 16.6.2005 whereas actual physical possession of the suit land continued with the petitioners. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. was filed by the petitioner along with their suit for grant of ad interim injunction. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit, as also the application and submitted that they were owners of the suit land and had never created a tenancy in favour of the petitioners. However, the factum of C.R.No.5357 of 2008 -3- .... the land being on 1/3rd Batai with Smt.Ganga alias Gungi as tenant was not denied, but it was pleaded that she had died without leaving any male lineal descendent and the alleged tenancy rights created in favour of the petitioners by virtue of a Will was wrong as the same was a forged document. It was further pleaded that after the death of Smt.Ganga, respondent no.3 had taken forcible possession of the suit land and, therefore, respondent nos. 1 and 2 had to file the suit suit, which was decreed in their favour and the appeal against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 alleged that the petitioners in collusion with Halwa Patwari got their names entered in the revenue record in the column of possession qua the suit land to which they had no right, title or interest and that the actual physical possession thereof had already been taken by them on 16.6.2005 in pursuance to the warrants of possession having been issued by the Court. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that there was no dispute regarding the ownership of the suit land as it belonged to respondent nos. 1 and 2 and further that the decree stood executed and satisfied and, therefore, declined the relief of ad interim injunction. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed on record certain khasra girdawaris to show that the petitioners were in cultivating possession of the land in question even subsequent to the year 2005 and contended that these documents belied the assertion of respondent nos. 1 and 2 that the decree has been executed and possession taken. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 C.R.No.5357 of 2008 -4- .... argued that the Will was a forged document and so far as the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. is concerned, it has to be seen as to whether prima facie, the petitioners are in possession of the suit land. He further submitted that since the decree in favour of respondent nos. 1 and 2 has already been executed in the year 2005, the petitioners cannot be said to be in possession of the suit land. That apart, he contended that a valid decree was passed in favour of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and concededly, they are owners of the suit land and no injunction can be issued against against a rightful owner. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 also submitted that the petitioners had made an attempt in the previous suit by making an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. which was declined up to the High Court and therefore, they cannot now turn around to get the said relief by filing a separate suit. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that khasra girdwaris of the years 2006 and 2007 indicate the petitioners to be in cultivating possession of the suit land. Undisputedly, respondent nos. 1 and 2 are the owners, but the entries in the revenue record (khasra girdawaris) show that the possession of the suit land is with the petitioners. Prima facie, therefore, there is some material to show the possession of the petitioners over the suit land, hence, it would be just and equitable to direct that status quo be maintained till the disposal of the suit. The petitioners can, however, be directed to pay the mesne profits as their status as tenant of the suit land is yet to be determined on the basis of the plea taken up by them. C.R.No.5357 of 2008 -5- .... Accordingly, this revision petition is disposed of with a direction that status quo with regard to the possession of the land in question shall be maintained by the parties till the disposal of the suit and that the petitioners shall pay the mesne profits to respondent nos. 1 and 2, which shall be determined by the learned trial Court in accordance with law. November 21,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge