Civil Revision No.3934 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3934 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision 17.07.2009 Baljinder Singh ......Petitioner VERSUS Darbara Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr.Amandeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.06.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana dismissing the appeal against the order dated 11.08.2004, passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samrala. The plaintiff-petitioner (herein referred as 'the plaintiff') has sought temporary injunction on the basis of an agreement to lease dated 05.06.2002, regarding the suit land executed by Darbara Singh defendant- respondent No.1. It has been further averred that the plaintiff has been using the suit property as a part of their courtyard of the house. Besides a shed, he tethers the cattle, installed a fodder cutting machine and keeps other agricultural implements in the premises in question. All the defendants contested the suit. The defendant No.1 in Civil Revision No.3934 of 2009 (O&M) 2 his written statement denied having entered into an oral lease or then reducing the same into writing by way of agreement dated 05.06.2002. He further asserted that actually, the suit properly belonged to Khuhi Atma Singh Wali and Civil Suit No.409 dated 13.12.1991 titled as “Jeon Singh and others versus Dalbara Singh and others” pertaining to said property was pending. Lateron, a new trust was created regarding the suit property known as Khuhi Atma Singh Wali and Shaheed Bhagat Singh Public Charitable Trust, Machhiwara Road, Samrala and the said trust was impleaded as party defendant. The said suit was decided by Smt. Asha Condal, Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samrala vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2003, in favour of the Trust and against Darbara Singh. The decree was passed by way of compromise. While categorically denying the said agreement dated 05.06.2002, he also submitted that the alleged agreement, having been prepared after obtaining his signatures by getting undue benefit of his old age, is a result of fraud. Similarly, the other defendants challenged the competency of defendant No.1 regarding entering into agreement. Both the Courts below have refused to grant injunction in his favour. Heard. The property in question is the ownership of the Trust. No such document has been placed on record to show if defendant No.1 was competent to enter into agreement of lease or that he is duly appointed Mohitmim of the dera lateron converted into Trust It may further be observed that the status of the plaintiff is that of trespasser and trespasser is not entitled to any sort of injunction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the two judgments i.e. Tarsem Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others 2005 (3) P.L.R. 595 and Maharwal Civil Revision No.3934 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot versus Baldev Dass 2005 (1) P.L.R. 399. These judgments being on the basis of different set of facts are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Similarly, the other judgment referred before me is Rame Gowda (D) by Lrs. vs. Mr.Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs and another 2004 (1) S.C.C. 769, where it was observed that it is necessary for the persons claiming the injunction to prove his possession without any concealment to the true owner. However, this judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Here in this case, plaintiff entered into possession on the basis of alleged agreement of lease executed by the person who was himself not competent to enter into such agreement and was facing litigation and this agreement allegedly came into existence during the pendency of the suit. As such, it would be appropriate to hold that the plaintiff being trespasser has no prima facie case in his favour and balance of convenience also does not lie in his favour for grant of injunction. Hence, the petition being unmerited, is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 17.07.2009 mamta-II Civil Revision No.3934 of 2009 (O&M) 4 This petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to imparting complete justice to the parties and to save huge expenses which may be occurred by the respondents as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. If, still dissatisfied, the respondents may move this Court for recalling this order.