CR No. 2883 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CR No. 2883 of 2007 Date of decision March 24, 2009 Om Parkash and others ....... Petitioners Versus Baljeet Singh and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 6. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers 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? K. Kannan, J (oral) 1. The revision is against the concurrent order passed by the Courts below granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff's suit was on the basis of possession and the Court below relied on the revenue entries showing the plaintiffs' father to be in possession of the property and granted relief for injunction. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that admittedly the predecessor Sona Devi obtained a decree and took possession of the property in the year 1961 and there was no document to show that the properties were taken possession of again by the judgment debtors. There was not even specific pleadings about the re-entry into possession and the plaintiffs did not have a prima facie case to obtain the relief of injunction. Even apart from the Court finding that the plaintiffs were in possession of the property it had also referred to the fact that the suit had been filed by the defendants CR No. 2883 of 2007 2 themselves for recovery of possession in respect of some of the items of property but they allowed the suit dismissed for default under Order 9 Rule 8. The Court therefore, granted the relief of injunction on the basis of revenue entry and the conduct of the defendant in not prosecuting the suit for possession admitting the plaintiffs to be in possession of the property. Learned counsel refers to the fact that the revenue entries have been wrongly made and the continuance of the plaintiff's father as being in possession even after delivery of possession in favour of Sona devi was wrongly carried through till the date of the suit and the wrong entries were corrected by Circle Revenue Officer by his proceedings dated 25.5.2006 (Annexure P-4). The proceedings have been taken on the basis of report of Patwari on 22.5.2006 and a further report from the Kanungo on 25.5.2006. It must be remembered that the suit had been instituted on 1.9.2003 and obviously the entries which were inconvenient to the defendant were rectified subsequent to the institution of the suit. It is possible to establish at the trial that the entries were really wrong and corrections which were made subsequent to the institution to the suit represented the correct state of affairs. At the stage of passing an interim order, it was concerned about the status as on land brought out through documentary proof available before the Court and under the circumstances it justified in ordering the injunction as prayed for. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a decision in Bhim Singh Vs.Zile Singh 2006 (3) RCR 97 where this Court has held that the person in adverse possession cannot file a suit for declaration claiming ownership. This Court has explained that mere long possession by itself could not be constitute adverse unless it was shown to be open, hostile and demonstrated to be true. The decision cannot in any manner affect an interim order of injunction granted by a consideration of the only relevant point whether the persons who were seeking for CR No. 2883 of 2007 3 protection of their possession were prima facie entitled to hold that possession and show proof of such possession. Adverse possession itself is mode of acquisition of tittle recognized by law and there is nothing immoral or illegal about it. It may be possible for the defendant to contend that the so called possession of the plaintiff was not proved or the reliance on the revenue entry for the purpose of granting the interim injunction was not justified if the revenue entries did not reflect the correct state of affairs. These matters will stand for appropriate adjudication at the time when the case is taken up on merits in a full fledged trial and the order of injunction granted on appreciation of evidence on the basis of documentary evidence to support them is only provisional which will have no bearing to the merits of the case at the time of trial. The orders passed by the Courts below have been passed on consideration of relevant facts and documents and they suffer from no legal vice to be susceptible for intervention in revision. 3. The revision petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 24, 2009 archana