C.R.No.2477 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.10441-CII of 2009 and C.R.No.2477 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:01.09.2009 Samer .....Petitioner versus Mauji and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr.Surinder Gandhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral) C.M.No.10441-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. C.R.No.2477 of 2009(O&M) In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff-petitioner has impugned the order dated 19.02.2007 passed by the trial Court, whereby an application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking interim injunction that the defendant- respondents be restrained from interfering in his possession and from demolishing any portion of the house of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit, was dismissed and also the order dated 03.01.2009 vide which, on appeal, that order was affirmed by the lower appellate Court. The trial Court while dismissing the application had in para 8 of C.R.No.2477 of 2009(O&M) 2 its order, observed as under:- “After hearing arguments advanced by ld. counsel for both the parties and on a careful appraisal of document placed on record, I am of the opinion that the application filed by plaintiff does not deserve to be allowed. Admittedly the plaintiff and defendant No.1 were co- owners in possession of plot No.426 which is gair mumkin bara to the extent of ½ share each. It is not disputed that the sale deed dated 26.8.2004 had been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of his plot measuring 120 sq. yards. A perusal of recital made in this sale deed as well as sale deed dated 31.8.2004 reveals that the dimension as well as area of the plot which was subject matter of both these sale deeds is one and the same. The only difference is that in the second sale deed no. of plot as plot No.426 has been mentioned whereas it is not so mentioned in the first sale deed apparently with a view to clarify the number of the plot purchased by him, defendant No.2 got executed and registered sale deed dated 31.8.2004. In these circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff to say that the boundaries of the property which are subject matter of this sale deed are different or the defendant No.2 is trying to interfere in his possession over his share or to demolish the same and hence I hold that no prima facie case exists in favour of the plaintiff to restrain the defendant No.2 nor any balance of convenience is in his favour. Hence, with these observations, the application is dismissed”. C.R.No.2477 of 2009(O&M) 3 The said order was affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the above observation of the learned trial Court, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present 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. September 01, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) seema JUDGE