Civil Revision No.7120 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7120 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.11.2010 Sadha Singh .... Petitioner Versus Amrik Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present : Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarunvir Lehal, Advocate for respondent. **** L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff Sadha Singh having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below in securing temporary injunction has filed instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the orders of the Courts below. Plaintiff-petitioner filed suit against defendant-respondent Amrik Singh alleging that plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property which is a residential house with 28 marlas area. Defendant has no right, title or interest therein. The plaintiff sought permanent injunction in the suit. Along with suit, the plaintiff moved application for temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit property forcibly and illegally, except in due course of law, during the pendency of the suit. The defendant controverted the version of the plaintiff and pleaded that defendant is owner of the suit property and plaintiff is tenant in only two rooms out of the suit property under the defendant, whereas Civil Revision No.7120 of 2009 (O&M) -2- defendant is in possession of the remaining suit property including three rooms and vacant land. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ajnala vide impugned order dated 08.12.2008 Annexure P-4 dismissed the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. Appeal preferred against the said order by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Amritsar vide impugned judgment dated 06.08.2009 Annexure P-5. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition challenging trial Court's order Annexure P-4 and Appellate Court's Judgment Annexure P-5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that even respondent has admitted possession of the petitioner over two rooms out of the suit property and, therefore, temporary injunction should have been granted by the Courts below regarding the same. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent contended that plaintiff-petitioner has not come with clean hands and has taken false plea of his ownership over the suit property and, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to relief of temporary injunction even in respect of two rooms which are admittedly in his possession although as tenant. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The suit property is situated within abadi of village. Prima facie at this stage, the plaintiff-petitioner being admittedly in possession of two rooms out of the suit property is entitled to protect his possession thereon and the defendant respondent who claims himself to be owner of the suit property is also not entitled to dispossess the plaintiff-petitioner from the said two rooms except Civil Revision No.7120 of 2009 (O&M) -3- in due course of law. Consequently the plaintiff-petitioner is entitled to succeed to this extent. The Courts below committed illegality and jurisdictional error in not granting said relief to the plaintiff-petitioner. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed partly and impugned order Annexure P-4 of the Trial Court and Appellate Judgment Annexure P-5 are set aside and application for temporary injunction moved by the plaintiff-petitioner is allowed partly, restraining the defendant-respondent from dispossessing the plaintiff-petitioner from the two rooms out of suit property (over which possession of the plaintiff- petitioner is admitted by the defendant, although as tenant), forcibly and illegally, except in due course of law, till final disposal of the suit. Nothing observed hereinbefore shall be considered as expression of opinion on the merits of the suit. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE November 29, 2010 'raj'