C.R. No. 3668 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3668 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 6.7.2009 Baldev Singh .......... Petitioner Versus Daljit Singh & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 15290-CII of 2009 Allowed. Filing of certified copy of Annexure P-3 is exempted. C. R. No. 3668 of 2009 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.2.2009 ( Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur vide which appeal filed by defendant / respondents against granting of injunction has been allowed. The plaintiff brought a suit for injunction, restraining the defendant / respondents herein from dispossessing, the plaintiff / petitioner from the land in dispute, except with due process of law. The plaintiff / appellant did not attach the complete copy of the jamabandi on which reliance was placed, which was produced by the defendant / respondents, showing that plaintiff had only 217/2475 share in C.R. No. 3668 of 2009 2 the property. The learned appellate Court, therefore, held that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands, as he failed to place on record the complete documents on which reliance was placed for showing his entitlement. The learned lower appellate Court also held, that the plaintiff had exchanged more land, than his share, furthermore the main ground on which the appeal was accepted was, that the defendants had sought partition of the land. The share in possession of the plaintiff / appellant fell to share of defendant. Therefore, it was held that the defendants were taking possession by due process of law, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to injunction. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the learned lower appellate Court has wrongly recorded, the share of the petitioner i.e. 20 Kanals 2 Marlas instead of 23 Kanals 12 Marlas, as noted by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the order passed by the learned lower appellate Court suffers from impropriety and error which is liable to be corrected in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. To claim interim injunction, the party has to show prima facie case, balance of convenience, and further that irreparable loss would be caused to the party in case the injunction is not granted. In the present case the plaintiff did not produce the complete copy of the jamabandi showing his entitlement in the joint holding. The learned lower appellate Court, therefore, rightly held, that the petitioner had not come to the Court with clean hands, therefore, was not entitled to C.R. No. 3668 of 2009 3 discretionary relief of injunction. Furthermore, the defendants are taking possession as per decision in the partition proceedings i.e. due process of law. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. Even, if for the sake of arguments, it is taken that area mentioned in the order is not correct, still it does not advance the case of the petitioner. Finding no merit, this revision petition is ordered to be dismissed. 6.7.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE