Civil Revision No. 1827 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1827 of 2010 Date of Decision: March 18 , 2010 Bijender Singh and another ...... Petitioners Versus Raj Kumar Gupta ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma , Advocate for the petitioners. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed against the order of the Appellate Court allowing the appeal of the respondent and thereby setting aside the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners had filed suit for permanent injunction claiming that they had jointly purchased the plot of 29 square yards area from Ved Parkash son of Mantoli and that the said vendor had also produced site plan issued by the Patwari as well as no dues certificate from the Municipal Corporation Faridabad before selling the land to them. They had consequently prayed that the respondent should be restrained from interfering in their possession over the land in dispute. The respondent took Civil Revision No. 1827 of 2010 2 the plea that the property was owned by him having inherited from his father Teeka Ram by virtue of Will of the year 1962. The learned trial Court relying upon the sale deed as well as the other documents granted relief of interim injunction to the petitioners. In appeal the learned Appellate court reversed the findings of the trial court. The Appellate Court has relied upon the fact that apart from no dues certificate and the site plan, the petitioners have not produced any document of title which may show that their vendor was owner of the property. The Appellate Court also came to the conclusion that the petitioners being the plaintiffs are obligated to stand on their own legs and consequently drew an adverse inference against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that there was no document of title produced by the respondent. However, in m opinion it was incumbent upon the petitioner to mention the source of title of his vendor. Having not done so it cannot be said that the conclusion of the Appellate Court suffers from such material irregularity as to be liable for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently this petition is dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 18, 2010 sunita