IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 15.09.2010 C.R.No.5951 of 2010 (O&M) Ved Parkash ...Petitioner Versus Kundan Lal ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The defendant is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 02.08.2010, whereby the defendant was restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land except after adopting due course of law. The plaintiff-respondent filed suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the shop measuring 10’ x 20’. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is in possession as a tenant under the erstwhile owners. The said suit was accompanied with an application for grant of ad interim injunction. The learned trial Court dismissed the application for grant of ad interim injunction. But in appeal, the order passed by the learned trial Court was set aside and the defendant-petitioner was restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendant-petitioner that the plaintiff was handed over possession as a mortgagee and that the plaintiff has voluntarily on his own free will has handed over the possession to the defendant vide C.R.No.5951 of 2010 (O&M) writings dated 01.12.2008 and 21.12.2008 and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to injunction. Since the defendant-petitioner is alleging surrender of possession by the plaintiff, it will be a matter of evidence that whether the plaintiff has surrendered possession as mentioned in the documents dated 01.12.2008 and 21.12.2008. But, prima facie, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the learned first Appellate Court has gravely erred in law in granting injunction restraining the defendant from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner then argued that the sole intention of the plaintiff is to continue in possession of the suit property for one or the other reason. Therefore, to be fair to the parties, it will be reasonable that learned trial Court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously by granting three opportunities to the plaintiff to lead his entire evidence. However, such opportunities shall be granted in a span of three months. If the plaintiff fails to lead his entire evidence in the aforesaid period, the trial Court shall proceed with the said suit in accordance with law. Thereafter, the trial Court shall decide the suit after granting opportunity to the defendant-petitioner to lead his entire evidence, but not less than two months of the defendant concluding his evidence. With the said observations, the present revision petition is disposed of. 15.09.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2