IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5849 of 2009 Decided on : 13.10.2009 Labh Singh & others ... Petitioners versus Manohar Singh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed against the order of the Courts below granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent regarding the protection of his possession over the 71 kanals 11 marlas of land. While the ld. Trial Court granted him absolute injunction, the ld. Appellate Court has modified it and limited it to 67 kanals odd and ordered status quo with regard to approximately 4 kanals 19 marlas of land. The only argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the revenue record the land is described as joint. However, in my opinion, both the Courts below have dealt with not only the revenue record but also the attendant circumstances and have to rightly hold that the respondent has been able to establish, prima facie his possession over 67 kanals odd land, the details of which had been given in the order of the ld. Appellate Court. CR No.5849 of 2009 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the finding of the Lower Appellate Court i.e. the petitioners are not the owner of any land in the said joint Khata of 99 Kanals 5 marlas, is not based on any record. In my opinion, the said finding, having been recorded in an interlocutory order, would have no effect when the final order is to be passed. It is further clarified that the injunction would be restricted to 67 kanals odd land and the status quo would be with respect to 4 kanals 19 marlas of land. With these observations, this revision petition is dismissed. October 13, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE