Civil Revision No.827 of 2011 (O & M ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 04, 2011. Civil Revision No.827 of 2011 (O & M ) Gorkha ….Petitioner Versus Puran Mal and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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? Present: Mr.Dinesh Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. MOHINDER PAL, J. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `the Code’) restraining the defendants-respondents from taking possession of the Civil Revision No.827 of 2011 (O & M ) suit land measuring 27 Kanals 11 Marlas claiming prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. The trial Court allowed the application of the plaintiff-petitioner filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code and the defendants-respondents were directed not to disturb possession of the petitioner over the suit land except in due course of law. However, on appeal by the defendants- respondents, the said order of the trial Court was set aside by the lower appellate Court by holding that no case was made out against the plaintiff-petitioner and that balance of convenience did not lie in his (plaintiff-petitioner’s) favour. Hence this revision petition by the plaintiff- petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and going through the impugned order, I do not find any ground which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The plaintiff based his claim on the judgment and decree dated 28.3.1984 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Charkhi Dadri. However, the judgment and decree dated 28.3.1984 was set aside by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, vide judgment and decree dated 30.4.2005. Admittedly, Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.4.2005 was dismissed by this Court. As mentioned in this petition, S.L.P has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and review application is stated to be pending there. In fact, the plaintiff-petitioner wanted to take undue advantage of the entry in the revenue record which had come into existence in his favour on the basis of judgment and decree dated 28.3.2004, which, as noticed above, had been set aside by the lower Civil Revision No.827 of 2011 (O & M ) appellate Court and the view formed by the lower appellate Court had been upheld upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Resultantly, this revision petition is hereby dismissed being without any merit. However, anything said while disposing of this revision petition will not influence the trial Court while finally deciding the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. Dated: February 04 ,2011. (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE