IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3869 of 2011 Date of Decision: 03.06.2011 *** Rajesh .. Petitioner Vs. Satpal Vats .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Both the Courts below have refused to grant ad-interim injunction to the petitioner-plaintiff, which has necessitated him to file the instant revision petition. Heard. It is apparent from the records that the case of the plaintiff is that earlier the suit property was owned and possessed by his forefathers, who initially got constructed a Dharamshala and thereafter rooms and temples thereupon; the defendant has no right, title or interest thereon and wants to forcibly occupy the same. On the other hand the stand of the defendant is that the plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the suit property and a Mandir is being constructed upon the suit property by raising funds from the general public. It is apparent from the records that though the plaintiff claimed his possession over the suit land since the time of his fore-fathers, but except one document pertaining to the year 1905, no latest revenue record, was produced by him to show his possession. The khasra numbers mentioned therein were also not shown to have connected with the suit property because the revenue record of the intervening period was not produced. Even the site plan of the property was not produced by him. It also emerges out from the record that by way of writing dated 23.8.2003 plaintiff himself authorized the defendant to collect funds from the general public for construction/ renovation of the temple over the suit property, for which a society “Shree Balaji Hanuman Mandir Sewa Samittee, Kathmandi, Bahadurgarh” was registered, in which defendant is Tresurer. Since the plaintiff failed to show his possession over the suit property and the ingredients essential for the grant of ad-interim injunction i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, the Courts below rightly dismissed his application. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. The revision petition, being without merit, is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE June 03, 2011 Jiten