Civil Revision No.519 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.519 of 2009 Date of Decision:-July 28,2009 Hardeep Singh ....Petitioner Versus Hans Raj and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reports or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported to the Digest? Present: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr.Divanshu Jain, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral): This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.1.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, whereby ad-interim injunction restraining the petitioner- defendant from interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession of the respondent-plaintiffs over a piece of land in dispute has been granted, as well as against the order dated 10.12.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the above mentioned injunction order. The respondent-plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction, inter-alia, claiming that they are in possession of the plot Civil Revision No.519 of 2009 2 measuring 31.66 square yards, which they have purchased vide sale deed No.332/1 dated 18.5.2004 for a consideration of Rs.2,60,000/-. The description of the plot situated in village Nissing, District Karnal is duly mentioned in the sale deed itself. On the other hand, the petitioner-defendant has asserted himself to be owner in possession as, according to him, the plot in dispute forms part of the land allotted by the Rehabilitation Department to their predecessor-in-interest Sohan Singh vide order dated 26.3.1950. It may be noticed here that the defendant-petitioner has also filed a civil suit, in which Hans Raj and others plaintiffs are also arrayed as defendants. The petitioner sought injunction against the present respondent-plaintiffs etc. but the same was declined by the trial Court and the appellate Court. On the other hand, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court have relied upon the report of the Local Commissioner and granted injunction in favour of the respondent- plaintiffs as they are claiming title over the suit land on the basis of a registered sale deed. Relying upon some photographs appended with this revision petition, the petitioner contends that the respondent-plaintiffs are not in possession of the plot in dispute and it is for this reason that they have sought police help also. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. Both the Courts below have concurrently observed that the Civil Revision No.519 of 2009 3 respondent-plaintiffs have made out a prima-facie case and balance of convenience is also in their favour. Similarly, in the event of their forcible dispossession, the respondent-plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss also as they have been found in possession of the plot in dispute. It is well settled that, a revisional Court cannot interfere in an ad-interim injunction matter even if a different opinion can be found on the basis of the material on record. No interference is called for in the impugned orders. Dismissed. (Surya Kant) Judge 28.7.2009 AS