CR No. 3334 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3334 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.5.2009 Sh. Pritipal Chander Mehra and another .. Petitioners v. Harbhajan Singh Chahal and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S. C. Pathela, Advocate for the petitioners. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 21.4.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby in appeal the application filed by respondent No. 1-plaintiff for interim injunction was accepted and the order of the trial court, dismissing the said application, was reversed. The dispute in the present case is regarding the location of the property purchased by both the parties. Respondent No. 1-plaintiff claimed that he purchased plots No. 462 and 463 and was in possession thereof, whereas the petitioners-defendants claimed ownership with regard to plot No. 462. So the dispute remains only regarding plot No. 462. The stand of respondent No.1- plaintiff was that plots No. 462 and 463 were part of the land measuring 4 kanals 16 marlas, comprising in khasra No. 66/4/1/, situated in Shivalik Vihar Sites Pvt. Ltd. On the other hand, the stand of the petitioners-defendants was that plot No. 462 was carved out of land comprised in khasra Nos. 54//23/1(3-13) and 54//23/2 (3-13). A demarcation report was also produced on record, which prima facie established the aforesaid position. The learned trial court dismissed the application for interim injunction. The learned lower appellate court, accepting the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 -plaintiff, restrained the petitioners-defendants from interfering into the possession of respondent No. 1-plaintiff on the plots forming part of khasra No. 66/4/1, as was sought to be claimed. However, the petitioners were at liberty to deal with plot No. 462 purchased by them, which was forming part of khasra No. 54//23/1 and 54//23/2. The learned lower appellate court did not place reliance on the demarcation report produced by the petitioners for the reason CR No. 3334 of 2009 [2] that before the demarcation was carried out, no notice was given to respondent No. 1-plaintiff. Still considering the fact that both the parties are claiming ownership on plots, which are forming part of different khasra numbers, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in protecting the possession of respondent No. 1-plaintiff on the land purchased by him and of the petitioners-defendants on the land, claimed to have been purchased by them. Accordingly, no illegality as such can be found in the order impugned. As the dispute in the present case is only with regard to identification of the property, the learned trial court may get the same demarcated from the revenue authorities so as to settle the dispute between the parties. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 30.5.2009 mk