Civil Revision No.6302 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No.6302 of 2010 Date of Decision:September 28, 2010 Som Nath ---Petitioner versus Gram Panchayat, Handesra ---Respondent Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Mohit Jaggi, Advocate, for the petitioner *** GURDEV SINGH, J. The plaintiff-petitioner, Som Nath, has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 24.7.2009 passed by Civil Judge(Junior Division)Dera Bassi, and order dated 11.2.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Mohali, vide which his application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction was dismissed. As can be made out from the grounds of revision and the annexures attached with the revision petition, the plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-defendant, their agents and representatives from interfering in his peaceful possession over the site in Civil Revision No.6302 of 2010 -2- dispute situated in the area of village Handesra , Tehsil Dera Bassi District SAS Nagar Mohali. According to him he is running a floor mill in the abadi of the said village and the land in dispute is situated in front of the floor mill, which is being used by him for tethering cattle and for other miscellaneous purposes. The Shamlat Deh owned by the defendant is situated on the Western site thereof. On account of party faction in the village, the Sarpanch is inimically towards him. By taking the advantage of the shamlat deh, which comprises of Khasra No. 1104, is bent upon encroaching the land in dispute. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC in the suit for granting ad interim injunction. The claim of the plaintiff was opposed by the defendant, who came up with the plea that it is the owner in possession of the site in dispute and the boundary wall has been constructed on one side thereof. A well for the common use of the villagers exists in the site in dispute. A Local Commissioner was appointed in the suit, who submitted his report along with the map so prepared by him at the spot. After taking into consideration the documents produced by the plaintiff and after perusing the report of the Local Commissioner and hearing counsel for both the sides, the trial court dismissed the application, vide the above said order. The plaintiff preferred appeal, which did not find favour with the First Appellate Court, and was dismissed. I have learned counsel for the plaintiff. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff that prima facie case is made out from the documents placed on the record by plaintiff, which consists of photographs and the writing executed by the Civil Revision No.6302 of 2010 -3- villagers to the effect that, it is the plaintiff, who is coming in possession of the site in dispute since the time of his forefathers, who had been doing the work of carpentry therein. Those documents finds corroboration from the report of the Local Commissioner. The defendant under the garb of the shamlat deh, wants to dispossess the plaintiff from the site forcibly. The scope of this revision petition, which has been preferred against the order passed on the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2.is very limited The First Appellate Court recorded the finding that no prima facie case is made out and that no irreparable loss will be caused to the plaintiff, if injunction is not granted, after going through the contents of the documents annexed with the petition. I do not find that those findings suffer from any perversity nor it can be said that the order passed by the First Appellate Court is against the law. No ground for interfering in the impugned order is made out. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly. However, any observation made in this order shall not effect the merits of the case. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE September 28, 2010 PARAMJIT