IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3300 of 2008 Date of Decision: 28.7.2009 Hoti Lal and others ....Petitioners. Versus Nepal and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioners. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The defendant-petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30.8.2007 (Annexure P-3) whereby an application filed by the plaintiff-respondents under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed and the defendants were restrained from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs regarding the suit land and also from alienating the same or part of it, and on appeal that order was confirmed by the lower appellate court vide order dated 11.4.2008 (Annexure P-4). The lower appellate court while affirming the order of the trial court has noticed that the revenue records, prima facie, shows possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land to the extent of half share. The relevant observations of the lower appellate court recorded in para CR No. 3300 of 2008 -2- 14 of its judgment read thus:- “At the outset, perusal of the revenue record reflects the respondents-plaintiffs as gair morusi and there are continuous entries in their favour and in favour of their father in the column of possession for the last more than 30 years. Even the latest copy of rapat roznamcha dated 5.4.2006 prepared by Halqa Patwari in pursuance of order passed by Tehsildar again prima-facie shows the possession of respondents-plaintiffs on the suit land to the extent of half share. No doubt, the column of rent is silent about the payment of rent but the column of possession prima-facie establishes the claim of respondents-plaintiffs. The allegation whether respondents-plaintiffs or their father were licencees in the suit land is to be established after recording evidence of both the sides and while deciding the suit on merits. However, at this stage of temporary injunction, all the three essential ingredients of prima- facie case; suffering of irreparable loss and balance of convenience are in favour of respondents- plaintiffs.” No illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the orders passed by the courts below which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, CR No. 3300 of 2008 -3- there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Nothing observed in this order shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. July 28, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE