C.R. No.6554 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6554 of 2009 Date of Decision: 16.02.2010 Jagtar Singh Sidhu .……Petitioner Versus Vijaya Bank and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) This is revision petition by plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 22.12.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana and judgment dated 17.08.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that he is owner in possession of the suit plot having purchased it vide sale deed dated 28.09.2005 and alleged notice dated 22.09.2005 pasted by Vijaya Bank on the pillar of the gate of the suit property is illegal and null and void. The plaintiff’s case is that one Parghat Singh, who had taken loan from Vijaya Bank, mortgaged his property by showing wrong boundaries and in fact the suit property has been purchased by the plaintiff. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana vide impugned order dated 22.12.2005 dismissed the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, C.P.C). Appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the said order has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide impugned judgment dated 17.08.2009. C.R. No.6554 of 2009 -2- I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit, but the petitioner has been refused temporary injunction on the ground that civil Court has no jurisdiction. The contention cannot be accepted because the dispute is regarding identity of the suit property. The appellate Court has observed that at this stage, in the absence of evidence, it would be difficult to make any observation regarding the identity of the suit property being of the plaintiff or of the debtor Parghat Singh. It is also significant to notice that the bank issued notice dated 22.09.2005 vide which possession of the suit property was taken by the Bank. It was just six days thereafter that the petitioner allegedly purchased the suit property. The petitioner’s plea that the notice was actually pasted on the suit property on 06.10.2009 cannot be accepted at this stage in the absence of any material to substantiate the same. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner does not have a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. In any event, the discretion exercised by the Courts below cannot be said to be illegal or perverse so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 16.02.2010 A. Kaundal