C.R.No.2211 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2211 of 2009 Date of Decision : 15.7.2009 Satpal and others ...Petitioners Versus Raghbir and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate, for respondent No.1. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiffs are in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned District Judge, 24.3.2009 whereby application for grant of ad interim injunction, was declined. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for injunction and declaration claiming possession of land measuring 8 kanals situated in Village Bhuri, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat. The defendants assert that they have purchased the said property vide sale deed dated 18.5.1978 from Duli Chand and that from the date of purchase, they are in possession of the same. The revenue record also reflects the possession from the date of purchase. The sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that vendor of the defendants was not recorded as a person in possession at the time of purchase by the said defendants and, therefore, the defendants cannot rely upon the possession subsequently C.R.No.2211 of 2009 2 the sale deed. I do not find any merit in the said argument. The fact remains that from the date of sale i.e. 18.5.1978, the revenue record records the defendants as owner and in possession of the land in dispute. In view of the established possession, no case for grant of ad interim injunction is made out. Such is the view of the learned First Appellate Court as well. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 15.7.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE