C.R. No. 2167 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2167 of 2009 Date of Decision : 18.9.2009 Smt. Jagwati & others .......... Petitioners Versus Bishamber Dayal & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Ms. Pratibha Yadav, Advocate for for the petitioners. Mr. R.D. Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Rupam K. Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the orders dated 3.11.2007 and 25.3.2009 passed by the learned Courts below dismissing an application moved by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff / petitioners filed a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction claiming themselves to be the owner of the property in dispute by raising a question of title. Along with the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit was filed. C.R. No. 2167 of 2009 2 The suit was contested, wherein plea was taken by the respondents that the petitioners are being dispossessed under a valid and legal order passed under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation ) Act. The learned Courts below, therefore, held that no injunction can be granted against the execution of legal order. The learned counsel for the petitioners has impugned the order passed by the learned Courts below primarily on the ground that the petitioners have raised a question of title, and being owner of the property could not be dispossessed except till the question of title was determined by permitting the parties to lead evidence. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that once it was proved that petitioners were in possession of the property, they were entitled to protect their possession from illegal dispossession. On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Prima facie the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be barred in view of the provisions of Section 13- A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation ) Act as applicable to the State of Haryana. Furthermore it is well settled law that no injunction can be granted against the execution of the order passed by the quasi judicial authority. C.R. No. 2167 of 2009 3 The remedy to the petitioners was somewhere else and not before the Civil Court. No merit. Dismissed. 18.9.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE