IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2470 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision: October 13, 2011. Bijender. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Than Singh and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.S.Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.K.Tripathi, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 4. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 31.01.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar dismissing appeal filed by the present appellant-defendant against judgment and decree dated 18.09.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jhajjar vide which suit filed by respondents-plaintiffs was RSA No.2470 of 2008 decreed to the extent that defendants were restrained from interfering in their possession and dispossessing the respondents-plaintiffs from the property in dispute. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, respondents-plaintiffs filed suit for a decree for permanent injunction on the ground that they are owners in possession qua the property in dispute and that appellants-defendants are having no right in the said property. Learned trial Court while deciding issue no.1 held that respondents-plaintiffs were not proved to be owners of the property in dispute and however, they are proved to be in possession and hence, present appellant-defendants were restrained from dispossessing respondents- plaintiffs from the suit property. No appeal was filed against the said judgment by respondents-plaintiffs. Appeal was filed by present appellant- defendant which was dismissed. Only point argued by learned counsel for the appellant that though respondents-plaintiffs were not held to be owners of the property in dispute and however, present appellant-defendants have been restrained from dispossessing the respondents-plaintiffs from the suit property without giving any right to dispossess them in due course of law. Learned senior counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs has very fairly conceded that the impugned judgments and decrees may be modified to the extent that appellant-defendants be restrained from dispossessing the 2 RSA No.2470 of 2008 respondents-plaintiffs from the property in dispute except in due course of law. Hence, in view of these facts, the present appeal is partly accepted and the impugned judgments and decree passed by learned courts below are modified to the extent that present appellant-defendants are restrained from dispossessing the respondent-plaintiffs from the property in dispute except in due course of law. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 13, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3