Civil Revision No.5171 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5171 of 2003 Date of decision:2nd September,2009 Mukesh ......Petitioner Versus D.P.Mahindera .....Respondent Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Hari Om Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajive Bhalla, J. The petitioner challenges the orders dated 12.09.2003 and 21.08.2000, passed by the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri and the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering in plot measuring 144' x 57' (912 sq. Yards) forming part of khasra no. 134. It was further prayed that if it is found that some portion of the suit land forms part of khasra nos. 43/45, 43/43, 43/44, the petitioner has become owner by way of adverse possession. Vide order dated 21.08.2000, the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jagadhri, granted an interim injunction and restrained the respondent from interfering in the petitioner's possession over khasra no. 134 but declined relief with respect to the other Civil Revision No.5171 of 2003 2 khasra nos. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioner filed an appeal claiming relief with respect to the other khasra nos. Vide order dated 12.09.2003, the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, dismissed the appeal but despite the absence of any appeal by the respondent, vacated the injunction with respect to khasra no. 134. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate court had no jurisdiction to set aside the injunction granted by the trial court as the respondent did not file any appeal. It is further submitted that as the respondent made a statement that he does not intend to interfere in khasra no. 134, the injunction granted in favour of the petitioner could not have been vacated. Despite service no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. The trial court granted an injunction to the petitioner with respect to khasra no. 134 but his prayer for grant of an injunction with respect to khasra nos. 43/45, 43/43, 43/44 was declined. The petitioner filed an appeal praying for grant of an injunction, with respect to khasra nos. 43/45, 43/43, 43/44. While dismissing his appeal, the first appellate court also set aside the injunction granted with respect to khasra no. 134, though no such appeal had been filed. It is apparent that in the absence of any appeal, the appellate court committed an error in Civil Revision No.5171 of 2003 3 setting aside the order passed in favour of the petitioner. It would also be necessary to mention here that the respondent made a statement that he would not interfere in khasra no. 134. The appellate court however, ignored this statement and set aside the order passed in favour of the petitioner. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the revision petition is allowed, the order dated 12.09.2003, passed by the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, is set aside and the order dated 21.08.2000, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, is restored. The trial court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the next date of hearing as it is stated to be at the stage of arguments. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 2nd September, 2009 SKaushik