C. R. No. 7870 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 7870 of 2009 Date of Decision : August 06, 2010 Pritam Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Sawinder Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate for Mr. Premjit Kalia, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiff Pritam Singh, having failed in both the courts below in securing temporary injunction, has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 (wrongly typed as Article 226) of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders of the courts below declining temporary injunction to the plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that he has inherited 1/10th share of Tehal Singh in land measuring 140 kanals 14 marlas on the basis of Will dated 18.01.1982 allegedly executed by Tehal Singh in favour of plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff claimed himself to be owner in possession of the C. R. No. 7870 of 2009 2 said share. Plaintiff sought temporary injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from alienating the suit land and from dispossessing the plaintiff therefrom during pendency of the suit. The plaintiff also challenged partition orders passed by revenue courts for partition of the suit land. The plaintiff sought temporary injunction restraining the defendants from partitioning the suit land also. The defendants inter alia alleged that they have inherited the share of Tehal Singh being his legal heirs. Execution of Will dated 18.01.1982 allegedly executed by Tehal Singh in favour of plaintiff was denied and was pleaded to be forged and fabricated. The same has already been discarded in mutation proceedings by revenue authorities. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, vide impugned order dated 21.07.2007 (Annexure P-1), dismissed the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. Appeal preferred against the said order by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide impugned judgment dated 20.04.2009 (Annexure P-2). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that revenue courts, without deciding the question of title, have ordered partition of the suit land and therefore, partition orders are bad. However, injunction C. R. No. 7870 of 2009 3 order cannot be granted against proceedings of the revenue court. Moreover, prima facie, the plaintiff has not been able to depict that he is co- sharer in the suit land. He has set up Will dated 18.01.1982 allegedly executed by Tehal Singh in his favour, but the said Will has already been discarded in mutation proceedings by the revenue authorities. At this stage, prima facie, there is nothing on record in support of the plaintiff's version. On the contrary, partition proceedings have already been finalised and therefore, the question of injuncting the defendants from proceeding with the partition proceedings would not arise. There is also nothing on record to depict prima facie that plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. Consequently, temporary injunction against his dispossession also cannot be granted. Both the courts below have considered the matter in correct perspective and have exercised the judicial discretion in declining the temporary injunction to the plaintiff-petitioner. There is no illegality in the orders of the courts below warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit. August 06, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE